Al Jazeera Net - London

The European Union and Britain are entering critical trade negotiations, which will determine the fate of relations between the two parties: either agreeing on a new deal that may reduce the Brexit losses, or exit without agreement and the financial and economic costs that this option entails for either the European bloc or the United Kingdom.

The indicators - which preceded the official launch of the negotiations between the European and British delegations - show that the talks will not be easy but may reach a dead end after a few months, a possibility that London took into account through its official response to the European offer of negotiations.

The prospect of leaving without an agreement has returned to the top again, after the British government confirmed that it will continue these negotiations until the end of next June. In the event that no agreement is reached, it will withdraw to prepare itself for a withdrawal scenario without signing any commercial agreement.

Fair competition
The Johnson government set the option to withdraw - without an agreement at the negotiating table - due to the many red lines that the Europeans set to negotiate with the British. Perhaps the most important of them is the Brussels requirement that the trade agreement include a British commitment to fair competition rules as required by European legislation.

A demand that London responds to violates the sovereignty of the countries that the British voted to restore from the European Union institutions, and considers that the most appropriate solution is to reach a trade agreement similar to the one that links Canada to the European Union, and that achieves tariffs of up to 0% without Canada’s commitment to adhere to European laws with Related to trade and commodity exchange.

6128176809001 b0747291-2118-422a-9dbe-8cb955b2f078 18cbd5e1-61d5-4c26-9512-a4ca88a22317
video

A struggle of wills
European officials do not hide their annoyance at what they describe as British attempts to back down from previous commitments, which was expressed by the chief European negotiator Michel Barnier, when he stated that the difference between what was previously committed to the United Kingdom and what it announces after the withdrawal is "a matter of concern".

Indeed, the European anger reached its extent by revealing a French veto to reject any trade agreement with Britain unless the latter adheres to the standards of the Union in relation to food products and the approval of fair trade competition laws, to show that the Union fears unfair competition with American food products.

Europeans believe that Britain's permission to enter chlorophyll washed chicken from the United States is against European food safety standards. It also puts the interests of European peasants in danger, as they will find themselves in unfair competition with chickens coming from low-price America.

Another red line developed by the Europeans, is the agreement on marine fishing. They are looking for a trade agreement that would allow European ships to fish in British waters without imposing any fees, in exchange for the European Union allowing British ships to fish in European waters, a demand rejected by London, which says priority will always be for British sailors.

The UK is not afraid of Europe closing its waters to British fishermen, given the small contribution of the fishing sector to the economy, as it does not exceed 1%.

Despite the British insistence on negotiating a similar agreement with the trade agreement with Canada, the European Union ruled out this option, and Michel Barnier said that "Canada is not Britain."

The European diplomat stepped up his rhetoric when he stressed that the European bloc "will not accept half an agreement, either a comprehensive agreement or no agreement."

Waving the parties the option to withdraw without an agreement - before the start of negotiations - indicates a lack of trust between them, and the unwillingness to make any compromise unaccounted for, especially as Britain raises the slogan of "restoring sovereignty" in these negotiations through "three noises" that the European High Court of Justice does not enter into cases British legal, nor commitment to health and nutritional standards of the European Union, and no one involved in the management of the British borders, whether land or sea.

Johnson shows opposition to many European demands because his eye is on US trade agreement (Reuters)

Everyone is a loser
Nihad Ismail, an expert on British economic affairs, explains the divergent positions among negotiators that the European Union is tightening up with Britain in order to make it an example for other countries that may be tempted to withdraw from the European Union, while Johnson appears opposed to many European demands because he appointed him to the American trade agreement.

But according to the economist’s expectations - in his interview with Al-Jazeera Net - the British bet on the American ally “may disappoint”, referring to the ferocity of the Americans in trade negotiations. Opposes their interests. "

Only allowing Americans to invest in the health sector may make the United States show some softening in reaching a trade agreement with the United Kingdom "because it is a huge sector and investing in it brings in profits worth billions."

Even if Johnson succeeds in extracting a trade agreement from US President Donald Trump, "this matter will not solve the problem for Britain because it will lose a market with 450 million consumers, which even the United States will not be able to compensate for," says the economist.

The same expert does not expect anyone to emerge victorious from the bone-breaking battle that the European Union entered with Britain. Exiting without an agreement would cost London a 5% decline in the value of the economy and a 10-year decline in economic growth.

The Europeans will also lose a market that was importing four hundred billion dollars from them, providing the example of the German car market, which would lose forty billion if the United Kingdom withdrew without an agreement.

The economist concludes that this trade battle between the Europeans and the British "will bring everyone out of their losers."