Local media is mainly focusing on two types of future relations, CETA-type and EEA-type.
A CETA-type trade deal would fall much short of what Britain is looking for, mainly because it offers relatively limited access in services, with no passporting rights for financial services - an important sector for Britain.
On the other hand, an EEA-type agreement would give Britain much of what it is looking for in trade, including passporting rights for financial services. However, the EU insists that access to its single market, which EEA countries enjoy, must mean not only free movement of goods, services and capital, but also of labour -- a demand that Britain is not willing to accept.
In other words, Britain is looking for a "CETA-plus" (i.e. plus services, including financial services) or an 'EEA-minus' (i.e. minus free movement of labour) agreement. For its part, the EU is sticking to its CETA or EEA offer, without plus or minus. Whether there is room for a compromise between the two positions and at what price -- in terms of UK contributions to the EU budget and with respect of ECJ decisions -- is what the negotiations of phase two will really be about, said Maria Demertzis, deputy director of the Bruegel think tank based in Brussels.
"Given the tight schedule of phase two, which requires a deal to be reached by October/November 2018, CETA-plus looks much more feasible than EEA-minus. For the EU, CETA plus would avoid getting into the discussion on the indivisibility of the single market's four freedoms, which it considers sacrosanct at this stage and which EEA-minus would imply. For Britain, CETA-plus would probably require less contribution to the EU budget and less respect of ECJ decisions than EEA-minus, and therefore be easier to accept politically," she added in an analysis co-writing with Bruegel's senior research fellow Andre Sapir.
【国际英语资讯:Spotlight: EU leaders give green light to 2nd phase of Brexit talks amid fears of tougher fu】相关文章:
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15