An interesting aspect of a trade deal is when a provision in it contradicts articles in other treaties. Back a few years ago when EU and Mexico were negotiating their deal upgrade, there was a point of contention about the cheese, because France and Spain wanted to force Mexico to block companies from using cheese-like tags in their product. For example, a Manchego cheese can only be produced in La Mancha, Spain, but a Manchego-like cheese (labeled as "queso tipo Manchego") can be produced anywhere. When the Mexican authorities started to consult internally to see if they could accommodate that request, American companies (many of which were producers of these cheese-like products) quickly complained that such a thing would violate NAFTA an would seek compensation. After that, Mexico rejected the EU proposition, as they valued NAFTA deal more than any potential EU deal. I wonder how much this type of scenarios can affect trading deals in the future. As nations move to create greater blocks (NAFTA, Mercosur, EU, TPP, etc.), will the chances of making deals outside one nation's own block decrease?
A lot of this could be solved if we had more flexible regulatory structures. There really shouldn't be any reason why they couldn't have multiple labels that would be applied based on where the cheese is shipped. But most of our regulatory structures are too inflexible for things like that. Including the EU.
@@OttoKremlthe problem is that the EU demands that only products coming from specific regions within the EU should be labelled with names that are seen in the US/Australia etc as ‘generic’ names for cheeses etc, eg, the EU is trying to dictate what American companies label the products they send to Mexico say. This would lower sales of US products and boost sales of EU products, thus it’s not a problem of the label, but that both parties want one label for one product from outside the EU to use or definitely not use a particular name. The same label can’t both use the name for the (US origin) cheese because that’s the accepted generic name, and not say that cheese name because the EU insists that only cheese made in a particular region use that name.
@@peter65zzfdfh Why does this preclude the label from being changed depending on where the cheese ends up, and how would it result in a loss if the label didn't change for cheeses that aren't going to the EU?
EU seems to want to be able to trade their products to other countries without having to buy products from those countries. Like with the US France and Germany who complains about protectionism but master in it themselves.
Eu wants zero tariff from india and wants to implement 25 to 40 % tariff indirectly using mechanism like EUDR and CBAM . THATS THE MAIN REASON . EU needs to be reasonable and drop EUDR and CBAM if they ever want a trade deal with india .
It all comes down to that stupid veto. That really should have been foreseen. The U.S. had a unanimity requirement in its first iteration (Articles of Confederation). It left the federal government completely nonfunctional: unable to levy taxes or tariffs, unable to pay its troops, unable to enforce its own laws. Poland had a tradition of _librum veto_ for over two centuries. It left the Sejm paralyzed for decades even as Poland’s neighbors carved her up. A requirement for unanimity has never worked in the past, and it wasn’t going to work this time, either. Time to ditch it and try qualified majority.
You're right but you're missing the crucial barrier here... what you're in actual fact advocating is the erasing of the nation state. As much as europhiles push for it, there is no united European demos currently, potentially by the end of the century there will be. I'm sure thousands across the EU would advocate for this but cmon be serious, the vast majority of Europe thinks their identity is their nationhood. What does Frenchman have in common with a Latvian? If Russia were to invade Latvia, do you imagine millions of Frenchmen would all unify to fight under the pretext of a common european identity? When you have this unity, you will have your federation.
Unanimity isn't always a bad thing. Look at the Brexit deal. The UK tried to negotiate with each member separately to have more strength in the negotiation, but because of unanimity, if it had divided the EU countries, no agreement could have been signed. Unanimity was therefore a great strength in this case. What's more, I don't want the EU-Mercosur agreement. We need to put an end to this type of agreement, which is too global. We can't accept products that don't meet our standards. We impose social and environmental standards on our producers, and that's a good thing, but if we import products that don't meet these same standards, where's the logic in that? Killing our producer? That's crazy.
The idea that the U.S. government was completely nonfunctional under the Articles of Confederation is myth. There were problems, yes, but the same system carried the United States to victory in the War for Independence. If the Polish veto was so completely unworkable, how was it possible for it to last for 200 years?? Its only real downfall was foreign exploitation. And consider also how far the EU has come with the veto. The EU may be slow, and its institutional complexity exacerbates its clunkiness, but it is not paralyzed. Yeah, the EU has lots of room to improve, the applicability of the veto should be reduced to fewer policy areas, but the veto still has its place. And qualified majority is not the only alternative to unanimity. Supermajorities are also viable, whether it be 80%, 3/4, or 2/3.
You don’t want a free trade deal with one of the biggest players in agriculture commodities on earth.. and I’m an agri trader! Just because this channel says it’s missing out on a free trade deal doesn’t make it true, they are out of their depth on this topic
Educate yourself, the problem is way deeper than what thru explained. For instance, farmers in the EU can use some pesticides that are allowed in Brazil. Also, Brazilian government didn’t want to allow EU companies to participate in governmental buying auctions
@@jeanrovasbabo7148 The EU imports €5.0Bn of food from China each year. China has the most polluted farmland and ground water on the planet, even its people don’t want their food. Yet the Europeans reckon that as Australia has higher standards than the EU that it still must be prohibited from trading with them. WTF?
In seeking a United States of Europe, the EU has overregulated its ability to move as a single entity. The EU was outdated from its founding, but at that time the members agreed to seek the benefit of all EU members rather than their own nation. With more selfish leaders coming to power the EU is both starving itself and ripping itself apart.
As an American, I would argue that the core problem is too little central authority, not too much. Brussels can't even levy taxes directly, let alone raise an army. America's first federal government (Articles of Confederation) was similarly hamstrung, and for the same reasons: the individual colonies wanted to maintain as much sovereignty as they could. It led to the same problems: gridlock, individual vetos, and total government dysfunction. The Constitutional Convention was a desperate move: everyone there knew the Union needed to reform or die.
@@davidblair9877 Yes, but what you described as the issues with our early nation is the foundation for the creation of the EU. It was never meant to be a centralized government and members at its founding, even to-date, regulated Brussels aggressively to ensure it cannot act as a centralized entity, because they did not trust giving the EU their sovereign rights.
@@pierrecurie Well no. States cannot block the federal government, and vice versa, by a vote. They'd have to go through the Supreme Court, who has final say. The EU can be paralyzed by one dissenting member. That could never happen here, as Texas and California have found out many times. Americans may cry about "big government" and "overregulation", but the EU actually lives that life. Here, it is fake propaganda founded on American individualism and need for self-described freedoms.
@@TM.25.0 sounds like we agree, then. The fundamental problem is that Brussels doesn’t have enough authority. It can’t sign trade deals because any single member state can torpedo the whole process, and getting 27 member states to agree is near impossible even if everyone is acting in good faith.
@@marcusmueller123 They have yet to go ALL IN in supporting Ukraine! They are just drip feeding Ukraine weapons, restricting their use and not allowing them to kick Russia out of their country! Thats your CONSENSUS!!
@@chrisalex82 but just like the UN, take away the veto and the strongest countries will simply leave the union as soon as a sufficiently unfavorable law is passed.
@@nicklaurindo1916 the US has a lingua franca. Europe is too diverse, no one wants to give up sovereignty to someone who doesnt even speak the same tongue.
Or having the wrong lobbies from outside controlling them from within. The best deal was no deal, so you won't be dependant on the hostile world and the parliament.
The Europeans have inflicted a punitive trade embargo on Australia for generations. Even in the face of war with Russia they refuse to replace imports of Russian food with Australian. That says it all.
Europe will always be very protectionist on agriculture, especially after the NAFTA example where American farmers killed Mexican farmers. It's not just about Australians, Ukrainians, South Americans and obviously Americans farmers were also denied to export to Europe.
"We are better than everyone else - be more like us" An European mindset older than time itself. Of course, times have changed and Europe is yet to realize this fact. Especially the fact that its values effectively suck and that its economy is no longer the big boy of the world, but more of an afterthought.
Finland and Sweden have the measure of it, back to basics. Problem is the EU itself (only around officially since 1993) and millennial voters mistook the absolute dominance of the USA during our formative years for the global acceptance of our views. Countries can just go elsewhere now (i.e., China, but also regional stars like Turkey or India), so high minded grandstanding is no longer a zero-cost enterprise.
@@NotSomethingIsNothing No, that's exactly what I want to avoid. Trade is a tool to make agriculture more environmentally friendly. Trade together with cooperation. Because facts sure have no effect. How would you do it? Ask pretty please?
@@weedidi7144 that's exactly what you are going to get with your elitist attitudes, thinking that your ways are somehow superior. Dictating rules and passing orders to do trade without actually helping the global south to get to the so called elite standards will not get you any deals. Stopping the elitist attitudes and actually helping to meet your rules in trade deals is a good start.
It’s impossible for so many countries to agree on these trade deals, as you’ve said: they have different interests. Each country should trade individually with other countries/economic zones and have individual agreements, as they already do! EU needs to loosen its grip. If French farmers are afraid of competition, then France shouldn’t join that trade deal. If Germany wants to export cars to Latin America, they should make such deal individually or in partnership with other countries who want to export. What is the problem? It is impossible to unite so many varied economic interests, climate conditions and different resources.
What you describe is literally impossible because the EU does not control or regulate trade within its member states. If Germany joins a trade deal and France doesn't, those goods will make there way to France via Germany.
Environmental problems can be solved with help of EU and member countries which they can negotiate with other countries and include in the final agreement. You can not expect other countries to do these without any help. But EU needs to be consistent clear and focus on trade rather than adding billions of requirements which hard to follow
The EU trade demands seem to assume South America, Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia are Western Europe culturally, politically and in governance. We are not, and given how things are going in some of these countries, don't aspire to be.
This would go against the basic idea of the EU itself. The EU is not a trade block, it's a political union, which was created as a peace project as a result of both WWs, which incrementally expanded. Long term improvement & stability (instead of short term gains) with prosperity through trade as the candy to follow through. So, trade is not the goal but the means. Don't like it? Don't get a trade deal with the EU and miss except the opportunity costs. (Yes, the EU misses out as well, but they can afford it - we are talking about the block with the highest standard of living in history after all)
@@frankkobold If that is the case then why has Europe embargoed trade with Australia since 1973? Australian standards are equal or higher than Europe, it’s a democracy that surpasses any in Europe, it has given its all in world wars to restore civilisation to Europe, it pays a fortune every year for European defence, its a responsible good willed member of the world community, yet the Europeans exclude it in favour of low standard polluted food from autocracies.
@@seanlander9321 well, based on the Global Food Security Index 2022 (the most recent I found), Australia is place 22, behind most of the EU countries (as a third country from the POV of the EU, Australia has to fulfill the standards of the individual nations, not of the EU itself), but ofc the scores are all close. But besides that, we are talking about a critical industry here - keeping the own production levels higher as the own consumption by volume as the highest priority. The import & export is basically "only" for more diverse product range (simplified ofc). And, we are talking here about a food behemoth like Australia. So, from the EU POV, relatively speaking not really a huge additional trade benefit, which is easily dwarfed by the risk to its own agriculture production, which would be a long term risk to its own stability (obviously the focus on peace and stability is foremost inside the block/in Europe itself). Is that really so hard to understand? In regards of your other points: Australia still has the unelected king as head of state, so it's easily less democratic than most EU members. (Please don't come with the "but he is irrelevant" argument, get rid of him in your constitution and we can keep talking). And what do you mean by paying a fortune every year for European defence? Do you mean in the context of its partnership with Nato (which is a 2 way street and also protects Australia heavily), or do you have some specific projects in mind? And yes, the dependency of Russian gas was a bad call, no one denies that. But it was the result of the general mindset of peace by trade - making it too profitable for Russia to keep trading which would mean that any military conflict would be more costly bc of the risk of lost trade. Sadly, putin & Russia are not rational players, preferring power plays over prosperity. Resulting in the EU hitting the gas hard to become energy independent. Honestly, this specific conflict alone shows how important it is to keep the security of vital core industries (energy, food,...) independent, no matter the economical cost
You can sign a trade deal overnight; provided you don't care about the terms and conditions... there's nothing unusual about equitable Free Trade Agreements taking decades to negotiate. At the moment, EU agri-business and high-energy intensive industries are the most exposed sectors for the EU. According to Draghi, decreasing energy prices within the EU by 200-300% would provide the EU with adequate bandwidth to avoid deindustrialisation stemming from FTAs with Mercosur or ASEAN.
Reducing energy prices by 200-300% would require energy companies to pay customers the current prices to consume at the very least. Please remember basic arithmetic when trying to make a point.
@@stephenlitten1789 I'm surprised you have the mental capacity to breathe... there's a little concept called 'supply and demand' my pedantic friend; look it up and remember that others shouldn't have to suffer your ignorance.
@@jamiegrant5955 There's a small thing called mathematics. And what you wrote said you don't understand it. Don't blame me for pointing out the emperor's nudity
About the mercosur deal apperantly president Lula is extremely optimistic specially after a tank a few weeks back with Ursula witch indicated that it might happen this november. Not sure if its gonna happen though in my opinion but one can wait
Well, mercosur are apparently not willing to make necessary compromises. (After all, relatively speaking, they would profit way more from it, for the EU it would just be an additional benefit)
@@frankkobold How would Mercosur profit more from it, if Mercosur would sell agricultural goods and commodities, while the EU would sell industrialized goods with far more added value? From the start it's a deal that by concept benefits more the EU, yet the EU is unwilling to compromise on anything. Which for the other part seems to be mostly a one way benefit for EU, with no reasonable returns.
@@Pixelarter bc it would also be easier for mercosur to sell industrialized goods to the most valuable market, increasing the complexity of added value generated over time, so developing their own industry? So something else than just agriculture? If mercosur is not willing to make more compromises (bc from their POV they don't think it will generate enough value to compensate for said compromises) - fair enough, it's their sovereign right. The same way it's the sovereign right of the EU to deny further compromises if they don't see enough benefit to justify them. After all, WTO rules exist, as well as smaller agreements in more specific areas. So trade is possible, just with more restrictions and more expensive for both sides (which is on purpose, to protect the own markets & industries). And ofc, the EU is using it's negotiation power - that's after all one of the many benefits of being a member.
@@frankkobold There's more chance it would quickly break most of Mercosur's industry, since it's more low complexity and lower quality than Europe's, with less established supply chains, tooling, less patents and technology... than the other way around. Also to be subject to arbitrary standards by EU, means Mercosur farmers could simply be blocked by new unilateral EU rules and be unable to compete with EU farmers, since they don't receive the same level of subsidies to comply with the stricter standards. The EU could even purposely design rules to benefit it's farmers in a way it's easier or cheaper for them to comply, and embargo the ones from Mercosur. For Mercosur there's no point in accepting an agreement if it's mostly a win-lose situation in the other's side favor, instead of a win-win situation with mutual compromises and benefits. The only way this agreement can go forward is if the EU is willing to compromise as well. Otherwise it's pointless and too risky for Mercosur.
The problem lies on the bureaucracy and lack of knowledges EU had towards its trade partners except US. It can be seen that when Indonesian diplomats protesting about EU reforestation law that would seriously affecting majority of palm oil producers a.k.a small farmers in Indonesia, EU play deaf with that, causing Indonesia in return placed a massive blockage to deter European companies from getting rare earth minerals that now were being sought after in European EV industries.
@@urlauburlaub2222 Why EU complaints when Chinese investors was the part of the investors that were willing to fullfill the requirements asked by Indonesian govt such as build smelters and processing facilities in Indonesia?? Why complaints when EU investors was afraid and unwilling to build the similar facilities in Indonesia as part of the requirements asked by Indonesia to get any nickel deal with Indonesia?? EU selfishly talking big about environmental damages when talking about palm oil but play blind with the sheer environmental damages that were caused by nickel minings. Of course that kind of hypocrisy would cause Indonesian felt utterly disgusted.
it's the opposite, we don't need all those trade. They're just "bonuses" the people who don't wanna trade with us are in dire need of these market in Europe. That's the differences :/
@@semikolondev actually EU desperatly needs new trade deals, in global environment EU is not any more leader of them, many countries are working on them now more fast thus danger of stagnation for EU is very real.
The EU and Mercosur share a land border with each other, and yet the graphic at 1:36 miserably failed to show that. Can TLDR aboid such an obvious mistake again?
EU is bad at making trade deals even after making trade deal with Japan, packages from Japan are still being taxed... what is the point of free trade when you still have to pay import taxes?
That's not how it works, however. Usually the VAT still applies, what you're spared are the tariffs. Many couriers are absolute garbage and will not negotiate to waive these tariffs, though, even when the product falls under a trade agreement provision. Check with a local customs official before ordering something from abroad again.
@@Ildskalli I rather vote to leave EU. Denmark would be better off outside EU making our own trade deals and laws and maybe set a limit before VAT etc at $800 like the US has it.
@@MylarBalloonLover you do understand that especially smaller countries like Denmark are heavily dependent on the EU and profit from its existence immensely, right? Oo
Why should EU want Free Trade Deals, when majority of the EU countries don't want those? As EU primarly role is as a trade zone (Yes there are a lot of political maneuvering, but the "free" acccess to EU market is the biggest incentive of being in the EU itself) and the EU itself is self-sufficient when it comes to food, manufacturing and services. The only "lack" in the EU market is energy, and there are already resources, both green and not, and both political and industrial movement towards Energy independence from countries outside EU. Why then should EU or countries inside of it be incentivised to make Trade deals outside the WTC rules? Other than ideological reasons, that is.
You are correct. Using the phrase ‘Free Trade Deals’ is, at best, misdirection. If the negotiation of a ‘Trade Deal’ is hung-up on specific minutia, ‘free trade deals’ are not under consideration.
Europe's consumer market is limited in size, and is shrinking as population is getting older and not fully replacing itself. It's economy growth is stagnating, since industrialized countries like Germany are having a hard time getting access to new consumers without trade deals to lower tariffs, as producing in Europe costs more than elsewhere (salaries and services are way more expensive). Without new markets to sell Europe's industrialized goods (greater added value), the EU economy will face serious crisis. If it keeps with the isolationist instance, EU's economy will continue to shrink, and as a consequence it's standard of living will also drop. If Europe wants to keep it's importance on the global economic scene, it will need to be able to negotiate and achieve compromises of mutual benefit with trade partners. Otherwise it will become increasingly isolated and lose relevance.
The EU is struggling because of its over-saviorism complex when setting trade axes. Take Morocco for example. The EU wanted to extend its fisheries agreement with Morocco (which is the largest fisheries agreement outside of EU countries). The issue the EU had was what to do with the Western Sahara waters? Morocco would not sign any contract which doesn’t include that area which historically belonged to it. What makes this stupid on the EU side is that all major EU powers recognised Morocco’s sovereignty over the region, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and most importantly the two countries formerly colonising the Morocco and the Sahara region, France and Spain. Yet the fisheries agreement was about to be signed when the court of justice, with judges 3 days out from retiring, suddenly and suspiciously ruled against the deal, thereby setting a precedent for a justice court deciding poltical territorial considerations instead of the European Council. Not surprisingly, after the ruling, more than 14 different EU members issued a statement to remind that their relation with Morocco is paramount.
Bureaucracy, political divisions, and not having everyone agree on their trade policy’s foremost priority (specifically one that doesn’t have complicating amendments added to deals after the fact).
If the U.S. had taken that approach, we’d be thirteen very strange-looking stripes on the North American continent instead of a global superpower. Actually, we'd probably be thirteen strange-looking vassals of Britain, France, Spain, and Germany instead of a global superpower. The E.U. needs reform and to ditch the veto.
Removal of veto would be extremely based... IF the united European identity was strong enough for countries to accept giving up a significant amount of sovereignity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't look like we're there.
And I wonder which country always pushed for the ever expansion without ever committed to anything?...oh wait, the UK ..the one that left once it felt the union was sufficiently torpedoed... But we'll wait and see who will really regret it....the point of Europe is not making "trade deals" but protect the internal market from trade wars.mnand build wealth from within... So who will laugh last?
when did we start to refer to right wing policies as populist? by the nature of the game all parties are populist... calling that only to one side shows you guys are biased and non objective...
Dear TLDR, One fascinating aspect of many of the issues revolving around the EU is how similar their problems are to the US Federal Government, and its relationship to The States. Just as the EU has pressures from members states regarding Steel, Auto, and Food issues, so does the US have when negotiating Trade Deals ratifying these agreements in The Senate.
France and Austria are the main countries opposed to this trade. It is indefensible for the EU to accept products that do not respect our environmental standards, contrary to what we impose on our own producers. South American countries have the right to define their own policies, and we have an obligation to defend ours in the same way. These kinds of agreements date from another era, and it's good that they are no longer accepted.
@@ozelotsoffunT-jz2rt France. The French have an obsessive hatred of Australia and they will never relinquish the trade embargo they caused the rest of Europe to join in on since 1973.
The truth completely ignored by this video is that the additional requirements were added in response to demands from EU member states under pressure from the public. These made the negotiations more difficult. A trade deal in ignorance of the public sentiment would have further alienated citizens from EU institutions. Pretending that it's a skill issue of Eurocrats, like in this video, is populism in itself, as it implies a solution, which is impossible to achieve. It's likely the logic of content creation, as the narrative feeds the next clickbait video, "Why the EU trade deals fuel widespread EU skepticism."
I mean talking to them is like talking to a Karen, they're the kind of customer who'll keep asking the entire history and document for a single carrot while holding the line at grocery store
What is the point of EU if each country have their own agenda anyway? They arent getting anywhere with that. Better to just do the trade deal individually.
The EU has never been able to successfully negotiate the trade deals it needs because of the veto. If every EU country has the power to object then they will always operate in their own interests first. Even the Canada deal, which took over a decade to negotiate and reduced Canada's trade envoy to tears has still only been partially implemented 7 years later, because some EU members are still protesting it.
@univeropa3363 bruh i get it you hate America but if anybody is a dying it would be russia as usa actually still has a lot more years of growth more than even the eu 😅 but i get why some might dislike the usa even though i think the usa is the most important partner with the EU and places like Australia etc where western thought and culture etc is fundamental
Contrary to the UK Who Can't keep a policy running for more than a few months before changing your PM, EU is a Stable Factor. There are no stumbling blocks. EU is slow but steady and that is how EU got so much more done than the UK.
They already sit on the negotiation tabel though? There is no "the EU negotiates for you", the member states have a say in the matter. Also, individual trade deals could damage the single market and face severe backlash from other member states.
@@luzie3317 It's indirect though. The EU commission for example is indirectly elected, not directly elected. And that's the institution that negotiates the trade deals and whose President is essentially the de facto leader of the EU. If the EU was to become more federalised, there would have to be more direct voting. The EU parliament is the only institution directly elected, and it can't even initiate laws, nor even amend, it can only reject or accept what it's given.
@@ecnalms851if they can reject...they make... Thats the thing. Veto power in the Eu is so strong because the ELECTED part is the most important part. The rest is not elected to actually streamline stuff. If we elected every part of the EU you can imagine how much political wrangly would be required just to start a single session. So no, the EU is democrtatic. Or is your buisness where the board of directors has to approve a plan not democratic? People just misunderstabnd there there are more than 80 different types of democracy just in the EU alone. and 27 major ones, we call them countries. But the single fact that EVERY single decision of the EU has to be approved by a directly elected parliament makes it more democratic than many national governments of EU members, where some bills can be passed by non elected people, like presidents (which do not always have to be a stitting member before being elected by their parliament) but he can still pass laws without parliament. Which is less democratic than the EU.
@@ecnalms851 That's got nothing to do with my point though. Yes, the Commission is indirectly elected by the EU citizens. But it is directly elected by the member state governments (and parliament), with everyone except the Commission President directly put forward by the member states. So the states (not the people, but I never claimed that) influence the Commission and by extension negotiations by the Commission.
No. That's one reason why they formed the EU. So they could punch far above their individual weight. Other countries struggled to leep up and make their own unions of trade to try and compete.
What you really need is deregulation. Regulations are destroying EU, your regulations destroy small and new businesses while maintaining the status quo of big companies
Trading is inherently political so requiring political quotas to be met when It comes to green policies and human rights is actually a good thing for the world as a whole.
Because EU is one of the most protectionist economy. Simple as that. They don't believe in trade but only export and exploitation. And trade involves imports.
The other big problem isn't simply the time involved, but the fact that the EU has a habit of changing terms even after member states have 'signed' on the agreement and then pretending like it's the other party's fault for such bad faith--But also the fact that in the time it takes for a trade deal, industries themselves have evolved and become voided because of their changing productive inputs. That's kind of the big problem. If you have a trade deal for, say, aluminium--The EU straight up change it to include energy policy, despite the fact that aluminium is energy intensive and typically has integrated state-wide power supply dedicated to its operations iron-clad in place. Now in the *ten years* it takes for such a deal on literally one input, teven if that member state says; "Well, we'll be implementing a better energy production and supply network over time..." Guess what happens? It goes back to the EU Parliament, in which case they debate whether they should look at specifically the grid supplying the aluminium plant in terms of carbon intensity. And frankly, the rest of the world merely wishes to feed its ridiculously high consumer market--And there's ever less reasons to become economically and intractably connected because of the diminishing returns. What's ridiculous is that Germany will become one of the biggest polluters by capita and its consumption, but nobody in the EU says anything about that--While simultaneously Germany gets to pretend like it should just be able to veto any member state looking for a trade agreement with the EU. In short, it's always been about European entitlement, and their 'high minded ideals' begin and end at the endangered rainforest timber desks of their bureaucrats that straight up stole from their colonies yesteryear, while pretending like other countries that are simply trying to keep them fed are the 'bad people' that 'tuk ur jerbs'.
Given that us purposely implemented policies to funnel as much business from the eu as possible as the war goes on and the energy prices soar, eu may very well end up having a huge humbling period, akin to the one uk experienced. I don't think in their hubris and presumption of their supremacy the eu politicians realized what is being done today, what danger their countries are in, and how important are rapid purely practical non-ideological moves right this moment for the future of their countries. They still think they can live in the clouds and ideologies, and are somehow entitled to remain on top of the world forever
What about the absence of the UK, which has been a proponent of trade liberalisation? Has this tilted the balance in favour of protectionism within the EU?
@@diabeticalien3584 Yes, but others in northern Europe weren't. They make external trade decisions collectively, which is why I asked whether the UK's departure has shifted the balance?
@@diabeticalien3584Makes sense, because of the relatively small size and high cost of labour in EU countries, it would not be cost competitive with South American or Asian countries.
74 trade deals and counting isn’t being bad at trade deals. The last few players for a trade deal like South American isn’t even a good idea, as an agri trader the euro market place does not want to open the door to tariff free imports of agri commodities it would create a lot less demand for local markets as imports start competing. It would be a very foolish move to make. You don’t want free trade deals if they risk damaging your country ability to have a competitive local market. And South America are a huge player in soft commodities and grains, it risks being a one way street. Bad idea!
As a portuguese, I definitely want a trade deal with Mercosul (mainly Brazil). Brazillian things are so stupidly expensive here. Obviously we iberians want a closer connection to our south american brothers. Agriculture is a very small percentage of our GDPs anyway. We will gain a lot more by being able to export our high-value added goods to them.
@thailux6494 Europe has no idea the potential exports it might have to make a deal with Mercosur. We have very high taxes for foreign technology, cars, etc. Things we're desperate to rise productivity. The deal would ensure the EU a huge marketplace for their products without competition from China, India and the US.
The EU overestimates its relevance. The Brussels effect is now causing the Europeans to become isolated from the rest of the world and they can’t afford that given that Europe is resource poor continent.
We still have Germany and the 3rd time is the charm. EU are the most relevant in the world. We have 3 players in the world USA (politically unstable state one side wants isolation another side are just woke no in between), China(a corrupt state which can implode at any time), EU ( right-wing problems). And EU states have a problems with right-wing parties and EU heavy hand to negotiation is good.
I love it, the division shows we are clearly not a Union and do not and have not ever wanted to be , just like the majority of Europeans told the EU in the 2005 referendum on the EU constitution: NO, we do not want your constitution. Off course these EU democrats could not respect the wishes of the voters or the outcome of the referendum and simply ignored it. As long as they keep ignoring that it will keep coming back until they listen and this supposed Union dies a natural death.
The Europeans aren't isolated. Firstly, the lack of a trade deal doesn't mean that trade can't happen. Deals just make trade easier. Secondly, the relative lack of natural resources doesn't have much to do this. Resource exporters are generally happy to sell to Europeans even without a trade deal being agreed (with some exceptions like Russia).
Does this deadlock force induvidual member states to make trade deals (not FTA but trade related to certain products or industries) with non-EU nations separately? For example, while the EU is still negotiating an FTA with India, France may go ahead unilaterally to trade deals for certain products or industries
Not sure why it's become a thing for people to bring up the UK as a defence for when the EU is bad at something. It's okay to just admit when the EU is bad at something. They're not infallible. I mean 25 years of trying to negotiate a trade deal is by definition particularly bad.
*So much happiness and joy $47k weekly returns has been life changing. AWESOME GOD I now have a house and can now afford anything for my family even with my Retirement..*
Only God knows how much grateful i am. After so much struggles I now own a new house and my family is happy once again everything is finally falling into place!!
Same here waking up every 14th of each month to 210,000 dollars it’s a blessing to I and my family… I can now retire knowing that I have a steady income❤️Big gratitude to Ms Evelyn Vera
After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my son's surgery (Oscar). Glory to God.shalom.
It is always going to be messy and slow. But trade/security blocks is the the big picture trend that will continue on as long as market economies are a thing. Two step forward and one step back. The dance continues.
You mean the British mindset of exceptionalism and cherry picking? The tories/Brits made is toxic and complicated by not wanting to be treated as a third country after choosing to be a third country (while expecting to still get all the benefits without the downsides)
@@UK.KennyBrown can you name one specific example where the EU treated the UK worse than a standard third country? Where it applied harsher rules which other third countries do not have to fulfill as well?
@frankkobold it forced the UK to separate Northern Ireland and create an internal border causing internal distribution friction within the UK. Done in the name of the good Friday agreement without the support of 1 half of the community. A vote should have been taken to give NI people the choice on the issue of where said trade border should be. But no that decision was made in Brussels by the behest of Dublin and forced on the UK as non negotiable without consulting the population of Northern Ireland affected.
@@UK.KennyBrown why do you try to shift the blame? The UK government could have held such a vote in NI. No one was stopping them. That NI will be a problem was already clear and well known before the Brexit vote. UK could have ofc avoided the internal border by breaking the GFA, they are sovereign after all. But obviously it would have had consequences, since both USA and EU are guarantors of the GFA, making anything besides WTO rules for trade as not realistic in such an event. UK could have done it, they chose not to. Basically, you just show the cherry picking mentality, trying to deny the consequences of decisions.
The EU and its members have reached a point where they will look critically if the deal is worth it and does not compromise certain interests and standards. Unlike, say, the UK they will not do a deal at any cost.
i understand this as "the UK has not standards and accepts everything out of desperation" actually becoming a third word country ☠(thanks to 14ys of tories)
@@chrisalex82 I guess you did not listen to the video very well. It’s about the overreaching demands of the EU in trying to negotiate trade deals, the result being that they can’t negotiate trade deals. Well, who would have thought that?
@@hughjohns9110 South American countries have the right to define their own criteria, but it's indefensible to accept products that don't meet the same environmental standards as those we impose on our producers. This type of agreement dates from another era and should no longer exist. In fact, it's a good thing they don't. Price alone is not enough to accept anything.
Lots of whining about the protective EU in the comments. Well, tough luck, as if China, the US, Japan, ... and all other blocks and countries in the world dont protect their market, relative to their bargaining power, that is derived from the size of their internal market.
Please, Europeans are some of the biggest whiners about US protectionism lately. Europeans actually seem to think they don't really do protectionism, it's hilarious. "It's just high standards," lol
@@chickenfishhybrid44 that's my point everyone whines about everyone. I didn't say EU and it's countries isn't full of whiners too. We live in an age of whiners.
Terrible analogy. This is a huge, wealthy market demanding basic standards from vendors, which isn't an uncommon thing at all. You as a person can also boycott manufacturers or producers if you disagree with their practices - this is similar, but on a much more massive scale.
And if 10 customers a day say that same thing. People underestimate their power. That's why I really don't get it that American let themselves be enslaved by the big companies. The creditscore is a good example, instead of just not playing their game "everyone" is busy getting loans so their credit rating doesn't drop. Your government isn't going to help you (neither side) you have to step up yourself. But instead they all jump when they're told to.
Sir, you can't kill and eat the other costumers alive and make ritual totems with their corpses. Well, that's rude. You've just lost a costumer due to your lack of flexibility. Serves you well.
why are you going to a shop that doesnt meet your values to begin with? seems kinda unfair to the shopkeep. Its better you dont even pay mind to that shop, and hope everyone else aligns with your values, and that shop would have to acquiesce and change, or face extinction. And yes, i know youre trying to make an analogy between the EU and Mercosur (or china)
The EU needs change. Its need to become more simple, streamlined and start swinging. Soft power is there best advantage but in the current climate its time for hardpower if they want keep it what they have.
The European Union what they want is all the European countries to become one country only then will there be able to compete against the rest of the world but I highly doubt some people in their countries will allow this to happen to give up the country culture ect.
@@mrlover4310 give up country culture ? if a state like that somehow comes into existence it will be a federation of some sort like russia with thier republics but actually democratic and not schizophrenic
@mrlover4310 Maybe the world doesn't want to trade with the EU anymore. I'm slowly see global south countries wanting to produce their own goods, which will create jobs and trade among the other global south countries, to get rid of western dominace..
To hell with the EU, with their double standards, hypocrites. And I am not saying that about their economic policies which are not great, I am saying that because of their politics toward certain countries.
An interesting aspect of a trade deal is when a provision in it contradicts articles in other treaties. Back a few years ago when EU and Mexico were negotiating their deal upgrade, there was a point of contention about the cheese, because France and Spain wanted to force Mexico to block companies from using cheese-like tags in their product. For example, a Manchego cheese can only be produced in La Mancha, Spain, but a Manchego-like cheese (labeled as "queso tipo Manchego") can be produced anywhere. When the Mexican authorities started to consult internally to see if they could accommodate that request, American companies (many of which were producers of these cheese-like products) quickly complained that such a thing would violate NAFTA an would seek compensation. After that, Mexico rejected the EU proposition, as they valued NAFTA deal more than any potential EU deal.
I wonder how much this type of scenarios can affect trading deals in the future. As nations move to create greater blocks (NAFTA, Mercosur, EU, TPP, etc.), will the chances of making deals outside one nation's own block decrease?
A lot of this could be solved if we had more flexible regulatory structures. There really shouldn't be any reason why they couldn't have multiple labels that would be applied based on where the cheese is shipped. But most of our regulatory structures are too inflexible for things like that. Including the EU.
Just American companies complained? Have any articles or references to this?
@@chickenfishhybrid44 The subsidiary of the company is the United States government.
@@OttoKremlthe problem is that the EU demands that only products coming from specific regions within the EU should be labelled with names that are seen in the US/Australia etc as ‘generic’ names for cheeses etc,
eg, the EU is trying to dictate what American companies label the products they send to Mexico say. This would lower sales of US products and boost sales of EU products, thus it’s not a problem of the label, but that both parties want one label for one product from outside the EU to use or definitely not use a particular name.
The same label can’t both use the name for the (US origin) cheese because that’s the accepted generic name, and not say that cheese name because the EU insists that only cheese made in a particular region use that name.
@@peter65zzfdfh Why does this preclude the label from being changed depending on where the cheese ends up, and how would it result in a loss if the label didn't change for cheeses that aren't going to the EU?
EU seems to want to be able to trade their products to other countries without having to buy products from those countries. Like with the US France and Germany who complains about protectionism but master in it themselves.
that's because EU product are far superior quality and safe than those countries :/
So what the point of trade deal if "only i can sell to you and you can't sell anything to me"??? No wonder the trade deals fail.... @@semikolondev
@@semikolondev Depends the product. Agriculture maybe, but a lot of EU products are subpar.
Eu wants zero tariff from india and wants to implement 25 to 40 % tariff indirectly using mechanism like EUDR and CBAM . THATS THE MAIN REASON . EU needs to be reasonable and drop EUDR and CBAM if they ever want a trade deal with india .
It all comes down to that stupid veto. That really should have been foreseen. The U.S. had a unanimity requirement in its first iteration (Articles of Confederation). It left the federal government completely nonfunctional: unable to levy taxes or tariffs, unable to pay its troops, unable to enforce its own laws. Poland had a tradition of _librum veto_ for over two centuries. It left the Sejm paralyzed for decades even as Poland’s neighbors carved her up. A requirement for unanimity has never worked in the past, and it wasn’t going to work this time, either. Time to ditch it and try qualified majority.
Completely agree
You're right but you're missing the crucial barrier here... what you're in actual fact advocating is the erasing of the nation state. As much as europhiles push for it, there is no united European demos currently, potentially by the end of the century there will be. I'm sure thousands across the EU would advocate for this but cmon be serious, the vast majority of Europe thinks their identity is their nationhood. What does Frenchman have in common with a Latvian? If Russia were to invade Latvia, do you imagine millions of Frenchmen would all unify to fight under the pretext of a common european identity? When you have this unity, you will have your federation.
Without unanimity most countries would have ave never joined. But i agree, unanimity also paralyzes the decision making.
Unanimity isn't always a bad thing. Look at the Brexit deal. The UK tried to negotiate with each member separately to have more strength in the negotiation, but because of unanimity, if it had divided the EU countries, no agreement could have been signed.
Unanimity was therefore a great strength in this case.
What's more, I don't want the EU-Mercosur agreement. We need to put an end to this type of agreement, which is too global.
We can't accept products that don't meet our standards. We impose social and environmental standards on our producers, and that's a good thing, but if we import products that don't meet these same standards, where's the logic in that? Killing our producer? That's crazy.
The idea that the U.S. government was completely nonfunctional under the Articles of Confederation is myth. There were problems, yes, but the same system carried the United States to victory in the War for Independence. If the Polish veto was so completely unworkable, how was it possible for it to last for 200 years?? Its only real downfall was foreign exploitation. And consider also how far the EU has come with the veto. The EU may be slow, and its institutional complexity exacerbates its clunkiness, but it is not paralyzed.
Yeah, the EU has lots of room to improve, the applicability of the veto should be reduced to fewer policy areas, but the veto still has its place. And qualified majority is not the only alternative to unanimity. Supermajorities are also viable, whether it be 80%, 3/4, or 2/3.
Wow man. This channel is so incredibly well done.
25 years without a deal 😂
You don’t want a free trade deal with one of the biggest players in agriculture commodities on earth.. and I’m an agri trader!
Just because this channel says it’s missing out on a free trade deal doesn’t make it true, they are out of their depth on this topic
@@Fab666. EU wants to export Industrialized but block farm products... how comfortable, haha... kinda Metropolis and colonies relation 🤣
Educate yourself, the problem is way deeper than what thru explained. For instance, farmers in the EU can use some pesticides that are allowed in Brazil. Also, Brazilian government didn’t want to allow EU companies to participate in governmental buying auctions
@@jeanrovasbabo7148 The EU imports €5.0Bn of food from China each year. China has the most polluted farmland and ground water on the planet, even its people don’t want their food. Yet the Europeans reckon that as Australia has higher standards than the EU that it still must be prohibited from trading with them. WTF?
The last trade deal went in force on 1 May 2024... so you must be from 2049?
Because some of them like France knew that signing a free trade agreement with the Mercosur would make their subsidized agricultural sector obsolete.
America has the same wonderful problem. Throw billions into the wind each year instead of importing from those who do it better.
erm what the sigma ??
basically protecting their own critical sectors is important
then how did france agriculture survive eastern european countries joining the eu single market with thier priceless agriculture ?
@@chrisalex82 does the mass suicide of french farmers count?
In seeking a United States of Europe, the EU has overregulated its ability to move as a single entity. The EU was outdated from its founding, but at that time the members agreed to seek the benefit of all EU members rather than their own nation. With more selfish leaders coming to power the EU is both starving itself and ripping itself apart.
As an American, I would argue that the core problem is too little central authority, not too much. Brussels can't even levy taxes directly, let alone raise an army. America's first federal government (Articles of Confederation) was similarly hamstrung, and for the same reasons: the individual colonies wanted to maintain as much sovereignty as they could. It led to the same problems: gridlock, individual vetos, and total government dysfunction. The Constitutional Convention was a desperate move: everyone there knew the Union needed to reform or die.
Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that the US is facing the same issues for the same reasons.
@@davidblair9877 Yes, but what you described as the issues with our early nation is the foundation for the creation of the EU. It was never meant to be a centralized government and members at its founding, even to-date, regulated Brussels aggressively to ensure it cannot act as a centralized entity, because they did not trust giving the EU their sovereign rights.
@@pierrecurie Well no. States cannot block the federal government, and vice versa, by a vote. They'd have to go through the Supreme Court, who has final say. The EU can be paralyzed by one dissenting member. That could never happen here, as Texas and California have found out many times. Americans may cry about "big government" and "overregulation", but the EU actually lives that life. Here, it is fake propaganda founded on American individualism and need for self-described freedoms.
@@TM.25.0 sounds like we agree, then. The fundamental problem is that Brussels doesn’t have enough authority. It can’t sign trade deals because any single member state can torpedo the whole process, and getting 27 member states to agree is near impossible even if everyone is acting in good faith.
Becuse they cannot get a consensus of approval done on ANY FRICKING ISSUE!
the veto was always going to lead to gridlock. always has, always will.
They reach consensus on a lot. Like Ukraine
@@marcusmueller123 They have yet to go ALL IN in supporting Ukraine! They are just drip feeding Ukraine weapons, restricting their use and not allowing them to kick Russia out of their country! Thats your CONSENSUS!!
@ nope. Orban is single-handedly blocking at least a dozen E.U. aid packages for Ukraine.
Once again, the EU, in its effort to appease everyone... pleases no one and manages to paralyze itself 🤷🏻♀️
problem of vetos, like the UN ☠☠☠
it pleases the USA that watches it becoming weak and subservient
@@chrisalex82 but just like the UN, take away the veto and the strongest countries will simply leave the union as soon as a sufficiently unfavorable law is passed.
Then the solution is to have a federation where members can’t just leave like the US
@@nicklaurindo1916 the US has a lingua franca. Europe is too diverse, no one wants to give up sovereignty to someone who doesnt even speak the same tongue.
Birthplace of Capitalism is bad at trading?
Sounds like a skill issue.
Birth place to socialism too tho. Kinda birth place to most of the things, good and bad.
Used to do with forcing power, cannot do it anymore, the modern imperialism should be done more smoothly nowadays
or concluded the deals weren't in the benefit of the Eu?
Or having the wrong lobbies from outside controlling them from within. The best deal was no deal, so you won't be dependant on the hostile world and the parliament.
@@yukitakaoni007 What do you expect?? They no longer able to do capitalism because they no longer can colonize another countries outside Europe.
they're good at providing cheap labour for big business though.
The Europeans have inflicted a punitive trade embargo on Australia for generations. Even in the face of war with Russia they refuse to replace imports of Russian food with Australian. That says it all.
that's actually good for me as a brazillian ;)
Europe will always be very protectionist on agriculture, especially after the NAFTA example where American farmers killed Mexican farmers.
It's not just about Australians, Ukrainians, South Americans and obviously Americans farmers were also denied to export to Europe.
We have the best standards out there, why should we agree on import less quality food or goods in general?
@@kevinh4869maybe first have a look at how great the now independent post-Brexit Britain's economy is going.
"The Europeans have inflicted a punitive trade embargo on Australia"
I don't think it's punitive.
Protectionism of its own farming and a lot of other segments
More like protectionism of french farming lol. Frenchies only care about themselves
"We are better than everyone else - be more like us"
An European mindset older than time itself.
Of course, times have changed and Europe is yet to realize this fact. Especially the fact that its values effectively suck and that its economy is no longer the big boy of the world, but more of an afterthought.
Finland and Sweden have the measure of it, back to basics. Problem is the EU itself (only around officially since 1993) and millennial voters mistook the absolute dominance of the USA during our formative years for the global acceptance of our views. Countries can just go elsewhere now (i.e., China, but also regional stars like Turkey or India), so high minded grandstanding is no longer a zero-cost enterprise.
As a Finn I strongly disagree. In trade with the EU, environmental and humanitarian issues should be the main factors.
Like said nothing but some anti American message.
@@weedidi7144 fell free to eat dirt at a later point, that should be the most environmental and humanitarianly friendly policy.
@@NotSomethingIsNothing No, that's exactly what I want to avoid. Trade is a tool to make agriculture more environmentally friendly. Trade together with cooperation. Because facts sure have no effect. How would you do it? Ask pretty please?
@@weedidi7144 that's exactly what you are going to get with your elitist attitudes, thinking that your ways are somehow superior. Dictating rules and passing orders to do trade without actually helping the global south to get to the so called elite standards will not get you any deals. Stopping the elitist attitudes and actually helping to meet your rules in trade deals is a good start.
It’s impossible for so many countries to agree on these trade deals, as you’ve said: they have different interests. Each country should trade individually with other countries/economic zones and have individual agreements, as they already do! EU needs to loosen its grip. If French farmers are afraid of competition, then France shouldn’t join that trade deal. If Germany wants to export cars to Latin America, they should make such deal individually or in partnership with other countries who want to export. What is the problem? It is impossible to unite so many varied economic interests, climate conditions and different resources.
What you describe is literally impossible because the EU does not control or regulate trade within its member states. If Germany joins a trade deal and France doesn't, those goods will make there way to France via Germany.
Environmental problems can be solved with help of EU and member countries which they can negotiate with other countries and include in the final agreement. You can not expect other countries to do these without any help. But EU needs to be consistent clear and focus on trade rather than adding billions of requirements which hard to follow
The EU trade demands seem to assume South America, Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia are Western Europe culturally, politically and in governance. We are not, and given how things are going in some of these countries, don't aspire to be.
@@nihadasgerli3947 That is what Indonesia asked for million times and that is what EU ignored for million times.
This would go against the basic idea of the EU itself.
The EU is not a trade block, it's a political union, which was created as a peace project as a result of both WWs, which incrementally expanded.
Long term improvement & stability (instead of short term gains) with prosperity through trade as the candy to follow through.
So, trade is not the goal but the means.
Don't like it? Don't get a trade deal with the EU and miss except the opportunity costs. (Yes, the EU misses out as well, but they can afford it - we are talking about the block with the highest standard of living in history after all)
@@frankkobold If that is the case then why has Europe embargoed trade with Australia since 1973? Australian standards are equal or higher than Europe, it’s a democracy that surpasses any in Europe, it has given its all in world wars to restore civilisation to Europe, it pays a fortune every year for European defence, its a responsible good willed member of the world community, yet the Europeans exclude it in favour of low standard polluted food from autocracies.
@@seanlander9321 well, based on the Global Food Security Index 2022 (the most recent I found), Australia is place 22, behind most of the EU countries (as a third country from the POV of the EU, Australia has to fulfill the standards of the individual nations, not of the EU itself), but ofc the scores are all close.
But besides that, we are talking about a critical industry here - keeping the own production levels higher as the own consumption by volume as the highest priority. The import & export is basically "only" for more diverse product range (simplified ofc).
And, we are talking here about a food behemoth like Australia. So, from the EU POV, relatively speaking not really a huge additional trade benefit, which is easily dwarfed by the risk to its own agriculture production, which would be a long term risk to its own stability (obviously the focus on peace and stability is foremost inside the block/in Europe itself).
Is that really so hard to understand?
In regards of your other points:
Australia still has the unelected king as head of state, so it's easily less democratic than most EU members. (Please don't come with the "but he is irrelevant" argument, get rid of him in your constitution and we can keep talking).
And what do you mean by paying a fortune every year for European defence? Do you mean in the context of its partnership with Nato (which is a 2 way street and also protects Australia heavily), or do you have some specific projects in mind?
And yes, the dependency of Russian gas was a bad call, no one denies that. But it was the result of the general mindset of peace by trade - making it too profitable for Russia to keep trading which would mean that any military conflict would be more costly bc of the risk of lost trade.
Sadly, putin & Russia are not rational players, preferring power plays over prosperity. Resulting in the EU hitting the gas hard to become energy independent.
Honestly, this specific conflict alone shows how important it is to keep the security of vital core industries (energy, food,...) independent, no matter the economical cost
You can sign a trade deal overnight; provided you don't care about the terms and conditions... there's nothing unusual about equitable Free Trade Agreements taking decades to negotiate. At the moment, EU agri-business and high-energy intensive industries are the most exposed sectors for the EU. According to Draghi, decreasing energy prices within the EU by 200-300% would provide the EU with adequate bandwidth to avoid deindustrialisation stemming from FTAs with Mercosur or ASEAN.
Reducing energy prices by 200-300% would require energy companies to pay customers the current prices to consume at the very least.
Please remember basic arithmetic when trying to make a point.
@@stephenlitten1789 I'm surprised you have the mental capacity to breathe... there's a little concept called 'supply and demand' my pedantic friend; look it up and remember that others shouldn't have to suffer your ignorance.
@@jamiegrant5955 There's a small thing called mathematics. And what you wrote said you don't understand it. Don't blame me for pointing out the emperor's nudity
About the mercosur deal apperantly president Lula is extremely optimistic specially after a tank a few weeks back with Ursula witch indicated that it might happen this november.
Not sure if its gonna happen though in my opinion but one can wait
MERCOSUR should stop wasting its time. Twenty five years of negotiations? Really?
Well, mercosur are apparently not willing to make necessary compromises.
(After all, relatively speaking, they would profit way more from it, for the EU it would just be an additional benefit)
@@stevekontis8992 Meanwhile Europe is hooked on Brazilian rainforest burgers.
@@frankkobold How would Mercosur profit more from it, if Mercosur would sell agricultural goods and commodities, while the EU would sell industrialized goods with far more added value?
From the start it's a deal that by concept benefits more the EU, yet the EU is unwilling to compromise on anything. Which for the other part seems to be mostly a one way benefit for EU, with no reasonable returns.
@@Pixelarter bc it would also be easier for mercosur to sell industrialized goods to the most valuable market, increasing the complexity of added value generated over time, so developing their own industry? So something else than just agriculture?
If mercosur is not willing to make more compromises (bc from their POV they don't think it will generate enough value to compensate for said compromises) - fair enough, it's their sovereign right.
The same way it's the sovereign right of the EU to deny further compromises if they don't see enough benefit to justify them.
After all, WTO rules exist, as well as smaller agreements in more specific areas. So trade is possible, just with more restrictions and more expensive for both sides (which is on purpose, to protect the own markets & industries).
And ofc, the EU is using it's negotiation power - that's after all one of the many benefits of being a member.
@@frankkobold There's more chance it would quickly break most of Mercosur's industry, since it's more low complexity and lower quality than Europe's, with less established supply chains, tooling, less patents and technology... than the other way around.
Also to be subject to arbitrary standards by EU, means Mercosur farmers could simply be blocked by new unilateral EU rules and be unable to compete with EU farmers, since they don't receive the same level of subsidies to comply with the stricter standards. The EU could even purposely design rules to benefit it's farmers in a way it's easier or cheaper for them to comply, and embargo the ones from Mercosur.
For Mercosur there's no point in accepting an agreement if it's mostly a win-lose situation in the other's side favor, instead of a win-win situation with mutual compromises and benefits.
The only way this agreement can go forward is if the EU is willing to compromise as well. Otherwise it's pointless and too risky for Mercosur.
I'm very thankful that I found your channel. I turned the bell on and will look for your videos. You are doing great work man. 💪
The problem lies on the bureaucracy and lack of knowledges EU had towards its trade partners except US. It can be seen that when Indonesian diplomats protesting about EU reforestation law that would seriously affecting majority of palm oil producers a.k.a small farmers in Indonesia, EU play deaf with that, causing Indonesia in return placed a massive blockage to deter European companies from getting rare earth minerals that now were being sought after in European EV industries.
Even without TTIP, Europe and the US can protect each other from useless deals. Indonesia should deliver value, not propping up China.
@@urlauburlaub2222 Why EU complaints when Chinese investors was the part of the investors that were willing to fullfill the requirements asked by Indonesian govt such as build smelters and processing facilities in Indonesia?? Why complaints when EU investors was afraid and unwilling to build the similar facilities in Indonesia as part of the requirements asked by Indonesia to get any nickel deal with Indonesia??
EU selfishly talking big about environmental damages when talking about palm oil but play blind with the sheer environmental damages that were caused by nickel minings. Of course that kind of hypocrisy would cause Indonesian felt utterly disgusted.
Man merkt, wie viel Arbeit hier drin steckt
overall it is clear sign of EU decline on world stage
it's the opposite, we don't need all those trade.
They're just "bonuses" the people who don't wanna trade with us are in dire need of these market in Europe.
That's the differences :/
@@semikolondev actually EU desperatly needs new trade deals, in global environment EU is not any more leader of them, many countries are working on them now more fast thus danger of stagnation for EU is very real.
Well they were all reliant on their colonies for resources so they never had to trade
From your map at 5:00, just curious what "better values" the EU was trying to impose on Canada?
And how this is a problem? and why it would be good idea to eu just focus on trade deals?
The EU and Mercosur share a land border with each other, and yet the graphic at 1:36 miserably failed to show that.
Can TLDR aboid such an obvious mistake again?
The person above tried to spell "avoid" yet the comment above miserably failed to spell.
Can you avoid such an obvious mistake again?
EU is bad at making trade deals even after making trade deal with Japan, packages from Japan are still being taxed... what is the point of free trade when you still have to pay import taxes?
That's not how it works, however. Usually the VAT still applies, what you're spared are the tariffs. Many couriers are absolute garbage and will not negotiate to waive these tariffs, though, even when the product falls under a trade agreement provision. Check with a local customs official before ordering something from abroad again.
@@Ildskalli I rather vote to leave EU. Denmark would be better off outside EU making our own trade deals and laws and maybe set a limit before VAT etc at $800 like the US has it.
@@MylarBalloonLover Surely the world is waiting to make trade deals with Denmark to your conditions. Ask the UK how it's working out for them so far.
@@MylarBalloonLover you do understand that especially smaller countries like Denmark are heavily dependent on the EU and profit from its existence immensely, right? Oo
@@MylarBalloonLover hahaha now you show your true face. russ npc mofo
Why should EU want Free Trade Deals, when majority of the EU countries don't want those? As EU primarly role is as a trade zone (Yes there are a lot of political maneuvering, but the "free" acccess to EU market is the biggest incentive of being in the EU itself) and the EU itself is self-sufficient when it comes to food, manufacturing and services. The only "lack" in the EU market is energy, and there are already resources, both green and not, and both political and industrial movement towards Energy independence from countries outside EU. Why then should EU or countries inside of it be incentivised to make Trade deals outside the WTC rules?
Other than ideological reasons, that is.
You are correct. Using the phrase ‘Free Trade Deals’ is, at best, misdirection. If the negotiation of a ‘Trade Deal’ is hung-up on specific minutia, ‘free trade deals’ are not under consideration.
@@maybenations Tye EU is not self-sufficient on food, half of its meat and dairy production for instance is produced from imported animal feed.
Europe's consumer market is limited in size, and is shrinking as population is getting older and not fully replacing itself. It's economy growth is stagnating, since industrialized countries like Germany are having a hard time getting access to new consumers without trade deals to lower tariffs, as producing in Europe costs more than elsewhere (salaries and services are way more expensive).
Without new markets to sell Europe's industrialized goods (greater added value), the EU economy will face serious crisis. If it keeps with the isolationist instance, EU's economy will continue to shrink, and as a consequence it's standard of living will also drop.
If Europe wants to keep it's importance on the global economic scene, it will need to be able to negotiate and achieve compromises of mutual benefit with trade partners. Otherwise it will become increasingly isolated and lose relevance.
The EU is struggling because of its over-saviorism complex when setting trade axes. Take Morocco for example. The EU wanted to extend its fisheries agreement with Morocco (which is the largest fisheries agreement outside of EU countries). The issue the EU had was what to do with the Western Sahara waters? Morocco would not sign any contract which doesn’t include that area which historically belonged to it. What makes this stupid on the EU side is that all major EU powers recognised Morocco’s sovereignty over the region, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and most importantly the two countries formerly colonising the Morocco and the Sahara region, France and Spain. Yet the fisheries agreement was about to be signed when the court of justice, with judges 3 days out from retiring, suddenly and suspiciously ruled against the deal, thereby setting a precedent for a justice court deciding poltical territorial considerations instead of the European Council.
Not surprisingly, after the ruling, more than 14 different EU members issued a statement to remind that their relation with Morocco is paramount.
it is bad example, it is very questionable that Western Sahara belongs to Morocco so no wonder that deal collapsed.
_"Morocco would not sign any contract which doesn’t include that area which historically belonged to it."_ When was that? Explain.
You claim " all major EU powers recognised Morocco’s sovereignty over the region ...". When did that supposedly happen?
@@kurtgodel5236when was it not ?
@@ivicaanic5213nothing questionable here do you have even the slightest idea about the history of the area my dude or yore just putting off hot air
Bureaucracy, political divisions, and not having everyone agree on their trade policy’s foremost priority (specifically one that doesn’t have complicating amendments added to deals after the fact).
interesting how this analysis doesn't cover what the 'foreign agenda of the EU' is..and why potential trade partners are choosing to walking away
this is the "anglo-saxon" analysis of the world... nothing to do with real reasons of things
And what is this “foreign agenda”, pray tell? Forgive my skepticism, but I’ve heard of many supposed “agendas” in the world, and most are utter bunk.
If they can't agree on anything then dissolve
If the U.S. had taken that approach, we’d be thirteen very strange-looking stripes on the North American continent instead of a global superpower. Actually, we'd probably be thirteen strange-looking vassals of Britain, France, Spain, and Germany instead of a global superpower.
The E.U. needs reform and to ditch the veto.
watched the video to see why my country was 'red':...
Shocking that a trade based nation like the U.K. would leave a slow and overly complicated system like this.
Map of India is wrong correct it now
What a fuster cluck.
Removal of Veto right is answer to most European issues💪🇪🇺
So member countries will be forced to listen to Brussels essentialy. No to EU!
Facts
Ah, yes, democracy
@@eyvindr. Populist propaganda! The EU counsel will tell the the commission what most decide in the EU. Not the brussel you imagine!
Removal of veto would be extremely based... IF the united European identity was strong enough for countries to accept giving up a significant amount of sovereignity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't look like we're there.
Very interesting
Too many cooks in the kitchen
Where did all the female hosts go? Tired of looking at the same two dudes.
Overly expanding the EU was its demise
欧盟国家薪资低的国家影响较少,高薪资高物价就是一个死循环,只能货币贬值来解决;
How? It seems that France is the main obstructionist.
And I wonder which country always pushed for the ever expansion without ever committed to anything?...oh wait, the UK ..the one that left once it felt the union was sufficiently torpedoed...
But we'll wait and see who will really regret it....the point of Europe is not making "trade deals" but protect the internal market from trade wars.mnand build wealth from within... So who will laugh last?
Map of India is wrong correct it please
we dont care
@SirAmnesia We don't care about your worthless comment
@SirAmnesia you do care that's why you commented
when did we start to refer to right wing policies as populist? by the nature of the game all parties are populist... calling that only to one side shows you guys are biased and non objective...
well said
Right wing policies are not populistic.
Populistic statements from the right wing are.
Dear TLDR, One fascinating aspect of many of the issues revolving around the EU is how similar their problems are to the US Federal Government, and its relationship to The States. Just as the EU has pressures from members states regarding Steel, Auto, and Food issues, so does the US have when negotiating Trade Deals ratifying these agreements in The Senate.
There is a difference between states and countries, you know.
Lemme guess in advance it’s France and spain
France and Austria are the main countries opposed to this trade.
It is indefensible for the EU to accept products that do not respect our environmental standards, contrary to what we impose on our own producers.
South American countries have the right to define their own policies, and we have an obligation to defend ours in the same way.
These kinds of agreements date from another era, and it's good that they are no longer accepted.
When French interests are damaged everything is blocked. When other countries interests are damaged the EU goes ahead. @@antoinebaldur2941
@@ozelotsoffunT-jz2rt France. The French have an obsessive hatred of Australia and they will never relinquish the trade embargo they caused the rest of Europe to join in on since 1973.
@@ozelotsoffunT-jz2rt France, France and France. The French hatred of Australia is palpable, they will never let Australia trade with Europe.
Map of India is wrong correct it
I think the mercator projection is not very suitable for discussing political issiues.
The truth completely ignored by this video is that the additional requirements were added in response to demands from EU member states under pressure from the public. These made the negotiations more difficult. A trade deal in ignorance of the public sentiment would have further alienated citizens from EU institutions. Pretending that it's a skill issue of Eurocrats, like in this video, is populism in itself, as it implies a solution, which is impossible to achieve.
It's likely the logic of content creation, as the narrative feeds the next clickbait video, "Why the EU trade deals fuel widespread EU skepticism."
I mean talking to them is like talking to a Karen, they're the kind of customer who'll keep asking the entire history and document for a single carrot while holding the line at grocery store
Maybe they just want to know if that carrot has been in your bum.
For the best of its citizens, as it should be.
@@itsme3213 , Your speech is quite socialist
For the best of it's clients and the climate
In a world of child labour, deforestation, water pollution and slavery we definitely need more Karen's. Only consumers can end exploitation
What is the point of EU if each country have their own agenda anyway? They arent getting anywhere with that. Better to just do the trade deal individually.
Agriculture subsidies also works as regional support to keep a certain level of economic activity in a certain region.
godd old E U
If one want to have a free with the richest and biggest market i the world one has to accommodate....
The EU has never been able to successfully negotiate the trade deals it needs because of the veto. If every EU country has the power to object then they will always operate in their own interests first. Even the Canada deal, which took over a decade to negotiate and reduced Canada's trade envoy to tears has still only been partially implemented 7 years later, because some EU members are still protesting it.
CETA would have been a disaster tho
Thumbnail - China has swallowed Kyrgyzstan
why does this keep happening, i see this at least once a month
I’ve no idea, idk if it’s a TLDR thing just internet thing
@@jj12s its an internet thing, dont know how this started or when its going to end
@@knjomoknjomo maybe most editors dont know their maps. I constantly see China swallow Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in maps on youtube
Its called a Freudian
my brain is hurting seeing a new tldr video with no text
Because we are chained to the dying empire.
The e.u is not an empire, never has been either. But we should just go back to basics and just go with the eez and negotiate prices and nothing else.
@@nenasiek I was thinking of America.
@univeropa3363 bruh i get it you hate America but if anybody is a dying it would be russia as usa actually still has a lot more years of growth more than even the eu 😅 but i get why some might dislike the usa even though i think the usa is the most important partner with the EU and places like Australia etc where western thought and culture etc is fundamental
@@awellculturedmanofanime1246 Doesn't clinging to the propaganda about Russia get tiresome?
Contrary to the UK Who Can't keep a policy running for more than a few months before changing your PM, EU is a Stable Factor.
There are no stumbling blocks. EU is slow but steady and that is how EU got so much more done than the UK.
Would individual countries benefit more from trade deals in Europe than hoping the EU will make a good trade deal for you?
They already sit on the negotiation tabel though? There is no "the EU negotiates for you", the member states have a say in the matter. Also, individual trade deals could damage the single market and face severe backlash from other member states.
@@luzie3317 It's indirect though. The EU commission for example is indirectly elected, not directly elected. And that's the institution that negotiates the trade deals and whose President is essentially the de facto leader of the EU. If the EU was to become more federalised, there would have to be more direct voting. The EU parliament is the only institution directly elected, and it can't even initiate laws, nor even amend, it can only reject or accept what it's given.
@@ecnalms851if they can reject...they make...
Thats the thing. Veto power in the Eu is so strong because the ELECTED part is the most important part.
The rest is not elected to actually streamline stuff. If we elected every part of the EU you can imagine how much political wrangly would be required just to start a single session.
So no, the EU is democrtatic.
Or is your buisness where the board of directors has to approve a plan not democratic?
People just misunderstabnd there there are more than 80 different types of democracy just in the EU alone. and 27 major ones, we call them countries.
But the single fact that EVERY single decision of the EU has to be approved by a directly elected parliament makes it more democratic than many national governments of EU members, where some bills can be passed by non elected people, like presidents (which do not always have to be a stitting member before being elected by their parliament) but he can still pass laws without parliament. Which is less democratic than the EU.
@@ecnalms851 That's got nothing to do with my point though. Yes, the Commission is indirectly elected by the EU citizens. But it is directly elected by the member state governments (and parliament), with everyone except the Commission President directly put forward by the member states. So the states (not the people, but I never claimed that) influence the Commission and by extension negotiations by the Commission.
No. That's one reason why they formed the EU. So they could punch far above their individual weight.
Other countries struggled to leep up and make their own unions of trade to try and compete.
With this much problem, may be EU should decommission.
Eu has to move to a mojoritarian model of vote of 2/3 instead of this unanimous consent.
Wider utilization of QMV is being worked towards.
In comparison to the UK's trade deals under the Tories the EU are absolutely brilliant.
that's a pretty low bar
Liz did a trade deal to sell UK chicken 5 KFC restaurants in Mongolia
Liz did a trade deal to sell UK chicken 5 KFC restaurants in Mongolia
Which is why you should never compare. Now, which of these two turd sandwiches do you want to eat? Compare them and make your choice 😂🤣
Apple is having issues with Europe. Recent updates and potential models won’t be sold in the Union. They’re pressuring
We're better off without Apple though...
Let them keep their overpriced antiquated hardware.
Good, what a terrible company
@@dnnslpptss-ll3cd I loved that they made apple use a standard plug=in
Sour grapes much
@@Snaakie83@Snaakie83 lol, tough talk. Seems Apple is still one of if not the most popular phones in the EU. Not to mention other devices.
Hit 250k today. Appreciate you for all the knowledge and nuggets you had thrown my way over the last months. Started with 24k in July 2024
Sounds good,how do you do that? I'm interested,how do I go about getting started?
Do you invest with a professional broker??I'd appreciate it if you show me how to go about it.
It's Geraldine Ann Philips doing she's changed my life. A BROKER- like her is what you need.
Her top notch guidance and expertise on digital market changed the game for me.
So nice to see Mrs Geraldline Ann Philip talked about here, her good works are speaking already, and like wide fire she's spreading
If we went through with these trade deals we would be soo much better off. They would help EU manufacturing a lot
What you really need is deregulation. Regulations are destroying EU, your regulations destroy small and new businesses while maintaining the status quo of big companies
Trading is inherently political so requiring political quotas to be met when It comes to green policies and human rights is actually a good thing for the world as a whole.
Because EU is one of the most protectionist economy. Simple as that. They don't believe in trade but only export and exploitation. And trade involves imports.
EU first. Yeah thats why theys set up.
The other big problem isn't simply the time involved, but the fact that the EU has a habit of changing terms even after member states have 'signed' on the agreement and then pretending like it's the other party's fault for such bad faith--But also the fact that in the time it takes for a trade deal, industries themselves have evolved and become voided because of their changing productive inputs.
That's kind of the big problem.
If you have a trade deal for, say, aluminium--The EU straight up change it to include energy policy, despite the fact that aluminium is energy intensive and typically has integrated state-wide power supply dedicated to its operations iron-clad in place.
Now in the *ten years* it takes for such a deal on literally one input, teven if that member state says; "Well, we'll be implementing a better energy production and supply network over time..."
Guess what happens?
It goes back to the EU Parliament, in which case they debate whether they should look at specifically the grid supplying the aluminium plant in terms of carbon intensity.
And frankly, the rest of the world merely wishes to feed its ridiculously high consumer market--And there's ever less reasons to become economically and intractably connected because of the diminishing returns.
What's ridiculous is that Germany will become one of the biggest polluters by capita and its consumption, but nobody in the EU says anything about that--While simultaneously Germany gets to pretend like it should just be able to veto any member state looking for a trade agreement with the EU.
In short, it's always been about European entitlement, and their 'high minded ideals' begin and end at the endangered rainforest timber desks of their bureaucrats that straight up stole from their colonies yesteryear, while pretending like other countries that are simply trying to keep them fed are the 'bad people' that 'tuk ur jerbs'.
Given that us purposely implemented policies to funnel as much business from the eu as possible as the war goes on and the energy prices soar, eu may very well end up having a huge humbling period, akin to the one uk experienced.
I don't think in their hubris and presumption of their supremacy the eu politicians realized what is being done today, what danger their countries are in, and how important are rapid purely practical non-ideological moves right this moment for the future of their countries. They still think they can live in the clouds and ideologies, and are somehow entitled to remain on top of the world forever
If the Europeans have such high minded ideals then why do they favour trade with Russia over Australia?
@@seanlander9321 Geography bro. Do you even map?
@@NJ-wb1cz Can you see how far away other countries are from Europe than Australia who are not embargoed? New Zealand for example.
@@seanlander9321 what exactly do you mean by being embargoed?
What about the absence of the UK, which has been a proponent of trade liberalisation? Has this tilted the balance in favour of protectionism within the EU?
Individual EU nations have always been very protectionist, especially in terms of agriculture.
If true, the UK leaving the EU seems like a very good thing in the end.
@@antoinebaldur2941 For who?
@@diabeticalien3584 Yes, but others in northern Europe weren't. They make external trade decisions collectively, which is why I asked whether the UK's departure has shifted the balance?
@@diabeticalien3584Makes sense, because of the relatively small size and high cost of labour in EU countries, it would not be cost competitive with South American or Asian countries.
Deixe as panelas ficarem vazias, eles virão até nós. 🇧🇷
Brazil is insignificant on the world stage
74 trade deals and counting isn’t being bad at trade deals. The last few players for a trade deal like South American isn’t even a good idea, as an agri trader the euro market place does not want to open the door to tariff free imports of agri commodities it would create a lot less demand for local markets as imports start competing. It would be a very foolish move to make. You don’t want free trade deals if they risk damaging your country ability to have a competitive local market. And South America are a huge player in soft commodities and grains, it risks being a one way street. Bad idea!
As a portuguese, I definitely want a trade deal with Mercosul (mainly Brazil). Brazillian things are so stupidly expensive here.
Obviously we iberians want a closer connection to our south american brothers.
Agriculture is a very small percentage of our GDPs anyway. We will gain a lot more by being able to export our high-value added goods to them.
@thailux6494 Europe has no idea the potential exports it might have to make a deal with Mercosur. We have very high taxes for foreign technology, cars, etc. Things we're desperate to rise productivity. The deal would ensure the EU a huge marketplace for their products without competition from China, India and the US.
EU pulled the plug from the Mercosur deal because of the Brazil.
The EU overestimates its relevance. The Brussels effect is now causing the Europeans to become isolated from the rest of the world and they can’t afford that given that Europe is resource poor continent.
indeed - which in turn increases internal strife and causes further divide. the project is coming to it logical conclusion, finally
We still have Germany and the 3rd time is the charm. EU are the most relevant in the world. We have 3 players in the world USA (politically unstable state one side wants isolation another side are just woke no in between), China(a corrupt state which can implode at any time), EU ( right-wing problems). And EU states have a problems with right-wing parties and EU heavy hand to negotiation is good.
I love it, the division shows we are clearly not a Union and do not and have not ever wanted to be , just like the majority of Europeans told the EU in the 2005 referendum on the EU constitution: NO, we do not want your constitution. Off course these EU democrats could not respect the wishes of the voters or the outcome of the referendum and simply ignored it. As long as they keep ignoring that it will keep coming back until they listen and this supposed Union dies a natural death.
The Europeans aren't isolated. Firstly, the lack of a trade deal doesn't mean that trade can't happen. Deals just make trade easier. Secondly, the relative lack of natural resources doesn't have much to do this. Resource exporters are generally happy to sell to Europeans even without a trade deal being agreed (with some exceptions like Russia).
@@dinf8940 yes, of course. You a reader of the Daily Fail?
Does this deadlock force induvidual member states to make trade deals (not FTA but trade related to certain products or industries) with non-EU nations separately? For example, while the EU is still negotiating an FTA with India, France may go ahead unilaterally to trade deals for certain products or industries
>bad at trade deals
but at least they didn't vote themselves off the island, like some no-longer-eu country.
*self imposing sections speedrun*
Yes the UK get details done why the EU don't
Yes the UK get trade deals done the EU don't
Not sure why it's become a thing for people to bring up the UK as a defence for when the EU is bad at something. It's okay to just admit when the EU is bad at something. They're not infallible. I mean 25 years of trying to negotiate a trade deal is by definition particularly bad.
>EU bad
>What about Britain?
You guy really know how to whataboutism
I dont understand calling it a trade deal. Surely it is a restriction of trade deal? So no deal is fine.
Otherwise just use WTO standard.
Another reason for an EU federation.
Because their masters in Washington has to give them the green light. You don’t need to make a 10 minute video.
In other words, the EU was sold like a bus but it became a immobile jail. A red tape nightmare.
I saw the original name!
Want a medal?
@@lachlanchester8142 yes plz
@@lachlanchester8142 WHERES MY MEDAL
@@lachlanchester8142 WHERES MY MEDAL
👏👏👏👏
*So much happiness and joy $47k weekly returns has been life changing. AWESOME GOD I now have a house and can now afford anything for my family even with my Retirement..*
Only God knows how much grateful i am. After so much struggles I now own a new house and my family is happy once again everything is finally falling into place!!
Same here
waking up every 14th of each
month to 210,000 dollars it’s a blessing to I and my family… I can now retire knowing that I have a steady income❤️Big gratitude to Ms Evelyn Vera
Absolutely! I've heard stories of people who started with little to no knowledge but made it out victoriously thanks to Ms. Evelyn Vera.
I do know Ms. Evelyn Vera, I also have even become successful....
After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my son's surgery (Oscar). Glory to God.shalom.
When will there be a video about the icelandic goverment collapse 🤔🤔
It is always going to be messy and slow. But trade/security blocks is the the big picture trend that will continue on as long as market economies are a thing. Two step forward and one step back. The dance continues.
thank god for brexit
And for their crumbling economy, thank goodness indeed for getting out instead of dragging the EU down with it
Brexit has been toxic and complicated by EU Beurauracy.
You mean the British mindset of exceptionalism and cherry picking?
The tories/Brits made is toxic and complicated by not wanting to be treated as a third country after choosing to be a third country (while expecting to still get all the benefits without the downsides)
@@frankkobold na mate EU made an example of the UK and made it as complex as possible because of the
Fear other countries would follow.
@@UK.KennyBrown can you name one specific example where the EU treated the UK worse than a standard third country? Where it applied harsher rules which other third countries do not have to fulfill as well?
@frankkobold it forced the UK to separate Northern Ireland and create an internal border causing internal distribution friction within the UK. Done in the name of the good Friday agreement without the support of 1 half of the community. A vote should have been taken to give NI people the choice on the issue of where said trade border should be. But no that decision was made in Brussels by the behest of Dublin and forced on the UK as non negotiable without consulting the population of Northern Ireland affected.
@@UK.KennyBrown why do you try to shift the blame?
The UK government could have held such a vote in NI. No one was stopping them.
That NI will be a problem was already clear and well known before the Brexit vote.
UK could have ofc avoided the internal border by breaking the GFA, they are sovereign after all.
But obviously it would have had consequences, since both USA and EU are guarantors of the GFA, making anything besides WTO rules for trade as not realistic in such an event.
UK could have done it, they chose not to.
Basically, you just show the cherry picking mentality, trying to deny the consequences of decisions.
The EU and its members have reached a point where they will look critically if the deal is worth it and does not compromise certain interests and standards. Unlike, say, the UK they will not do a deal at any cost.
In other words, trade with the EU on the EU’s terms or hit the highway. Yep, that’ll work well.
i understand this as "the UK has not standards and accepts everything out of desperation"
actually becoming a third word country ☠(thanks to 14ys of tories)
@@chrisalex82 this was basically the agenda of Liz Truss and many torries. Making Britain to a Singapore of Europe.
@@chrisalex82 I guess you did not listen to the video very well. It’s about the overreaching demands of the EU in trying to negotiate trade deals, the result being that they can’t negotiate trade deals. Well, who would have thought that?
@@hughjohns9110 South American countries have the right to define their own criteria, but it's indefensible to accept products that don't meet the same environmental standards as those we impose on our producers.
This type of agreement dates from another era and should no longer exist. In fact, it's a good thing they don't.
Price alone is not enough to accept anything.
Lots of whining about the protective EU in the comments. Well, tough luck, as if China, the US, Japan, ... and all other blocks and countries in the world dont protect their market, relative to their bargaining power, that is derived from the size of their internal market.
Please, Europeans are some of the biggest whiners about US protectionism lately. Europeans actually seem to think they don't really do protectionism, it's hilarious. "It's just high standards," lol
@@chickenfishhybrid44 that's my point everyone whines about everyone. I didn't say EU and it's countries isn't full of whiners too. We live in an age of whiners.
@@jeroencrabbe fair enough
EU : Fading into irrelevance ...
When were they relevant? Outside of Europe, they do not matter.
If I buy something from a shop, but tell the shop they must meet my "values" first, they'll tell me to get lost.
See where the problem is?
What If 449 million does that instead of just one?
Terrible analogy. This is a huge, wealthy market demanding basic standards from vendors, which isn't an uncommon thing at all. You as a person can also boycott manufacturers or producers if you disagree with their practices - this is similar, but on a much more massive scale.
And if 10 customers a day say that same thing.
People underestimate their power.
That's why I really don't get it that American let themselves be enslaved by the big companies. The creditscore is a good example, instead of just not playing their game "everyone" is busy getting loans so their credit rating doesn't drop. Your government isn't going to help you (neither side) you have to step up yourself. But instead they all jump when they're told to.
Sir, you can't kill and eat the other costumers alive and make ritual totems with their corpses.
Well, that's rude. You've just lost a costumer due to your lack of flexibility. Serves you well.
why are you going to a shop that doesnt meet your values to begin with? seems kinda unfair to the shopkeep. Its better you dont even pay mind to that shop, and hope everyone else aligns with your values, and that shop would have to acquiesce and change, or face extinction. And yes, i know youre trying to make an analogy between the EU and Mercosur (or china)
EU - extremely unsymmetrical & therefore incompetent.
The EU needs change. Its need to become more simple, streamlined and start swinging. Soft power is there best advantage but in the current climate its time for hardpower if they want keep it what they have.
The European Union what they want is all the European countries to become one country only then will there be able to compete against the rest of the world but I highly doubt some people in their countries will allow this to happen to give up the country culture ect.
@@mrlover4310 give up country culture ? if a state like that somehow comes into existence it will be a federation of some sort like russia with thier republics but actually democratic and not schizophrenic
🤡🤣🤣😂
well, certainly hope they try that. thell be swinging very quickly all right 😉
@mrlover4310 Maybe the world doesn't want to trade with the EU anymore. I'm slowly see global south countries wanting to produce their own goods, which will create jobs and trade among the other global south countries, to get rid of western dominace..
@Africaladyy I agree with you. the West has had its cake for years and now it's time for the rest of the world to have their slice.
dissolve the eu.
Just one thing: it's Mercosur or Mercosul.
Mercosur.
Mercosul is Portuguese, and Brazil is the only member economy that matters.
spanish or portuguese
@@andreoliveira685 Mercosur = Spanish. Mercosul = Portuguese.
The EU can only move as fast as its weakest link. This is why we are left behind.
Thats why the VETO must be dealt with soon
To hell with the EU, with their double standards, hypocrites. And I am not saying that about their economic policies which are not great, I am saying that because of their politics toward certain countries.
@@ozymandiasultor9480 Exactly, the hatred and prejudice to Australia from Europe is irrational.
2024