8th September 2021
I was once a central government lawyer for two-and-a-half years, dealing with public procurement, freedom of information and general commercial matters.
And one of the tasks I had was to support the United Kingdom (and thereby European Union) negotiators on the revision to the WTO agreement on public procurement.
This was exciting: international trade law!
How wrong I was.
In the two-and-a-half years I assisted on the the revision to the WTO agreement on public procurement, I do not think the negotiation moved forward substantially one jot.
(This was not my fault.)
In the words of the WTO website:
“Not long after the implementation of the GPA 1994, the GPA parties initiated the renegotiation of the Agreement according to Article XXIV:9 of the 1994 Agreement. The negotiation was concluded in December 2011 and the outcome of the negotiations was formally adopted in March 2012.”
So: 1994 to 2012.
Eighteen years – to revise an agreement already in existence and the revision of which most parties to the agreement broadly were in agreement with.
Eighteen years.
My two-and-a-half years was in the middle of that period, and that period were not much more than a splash in a river.
Negotiators came and went for all parties, and one suspects there was not anyone engaged with the end of the agreement who had been concerned with it from the beginning.
The one thing I learned was that international trade and commercial agreements can be slow: very slow.
*
But international trade and commercial agreements can also be quick: very quick.
One way that can be quick is if they are rollover agreements, a copy-and-paste of what was in place before and which all the parties are happy with.
Another way is to just accept what is on offer and to drop any demand which will not be met.
Such capitulations can be done very quickly indeed.
And so here is today’s news:
Sky News can reveal that ministers have agreed to drop binding commitments to the Paris climate change agreement from the UK-Australian post-Brexit trade deal
For more on this and other news visit https://t.co/8OWd2TvLrt
— Sky News Breaking (@SkyNewsBreak) September 8, 2021
Of course: a trade agreement with Australia sounds very glamorous.
The sort of news that would make certain people gladdened just because of the anglophone, commonwealth connotation.
But a new trade agreement entered into at speed, other than a rollover, will tend to be to the disadvantage of one party and not the other.
Any trade deal that is worthwhile for both or all sides will not be done at speed.
We were once told that ‘no deal’ was better than a ‘bad deal’ by those who now clap and cheer at any deal.
**
Hello there – if you value this daily, free-to-read and independent commentary for you and others please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
Please do support this sceptical liberal constitutionalist blog – and do not assume it can keep going without your support.
***
You can subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
This is said to be ‘for Australian political reasons.’ Good grief, this is not important compared to the impact on the perception of the Chair of COP26. Of course, we can expect that to be reduced to bull and bluster by the PM, even if the actual chairman elect is apparently reasonably competent.
The speed at which one can move when you have no principles and shoot from the hip without concious thought is astounding. The direction of travel is less certain.
Like a drunk bouncing off parked cars on the way to the next pub, the UK proceeds towards the gaslit uplands.
” (This was not my fault.) ”
The modesty that is encapsulated in that aside is admirable.