It is not clear what a Canadian-modeled free trade agreement between the UK and the EU would do with the Withdrawal Agreement (VA) and the Northern Ireland Protocol (UNDP), which will automatically enter into force at the end of the transitional period. It is clear from Mr Barnier`s framework documents that London`s insistence on exiting the internal market and the customs union meant that a “fundamental EU-Canada-style agreement” was the only option. And Johnson has been supporting these proposals for some time. In a September 2018 daily Telegraph article, the current prime minister wrote that a “Super Canada” deal was preferable to Prime Minister May`s withdrawal agreement. Looking at British negotiators, it`s easy to see why CETA is a potentially attractive model for the UK`s future relationship with the EU. Historical evidence shows that trade agreements take between four and nine years to conclude. So far, there does not appear to have been sufficient real progress on the details of a trade deal. CETA is “ready made” and its use as a model reduces the likely time of negotiations and increases the chances of claiming that the chosen negotiating position has resulted in an acceptable agreement. In the eyes of British negotiators, the EU`s ability to oppose, on grounds of principle, issues on which it has previously agreed to a compromise with Canada is also limited when CETA is the proposal. A CETA-style agreement also has enticing elements from a British perspective, relaxes the way it would ease the UK`s relations with Brussels and frees the UK from ties of free movement, financial contributions, EU law and restrictions in pursuit of an independent trade policy. The prime minister met with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen earlier this month in Downing Street to express his openness to a Canadian-style deal, the Times said. “If we do not reach an agreement that fully respects the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, we will withdraw under Australian conditions and we will succeed.
The Prime Minister said this on October 16 and is convinced that we can do it because we have always known that on January 1, there would be changes, regardless of the type of relationship we had. “What this financial chapter does largely in agreements with Canada or Japan is create a framework for regulators to engage in dialogue to avoid creating new unnecessary barriers in the future,” Lowe said. . . .