Brexit Referendum Superthread

First Up

Sam Russell wrote:

Cars, trucks - LHD vs RHD.

Sam Russell wrote:

Irish plumbing is imperial while all others are metric.

Sam Russell wrote:

I'm sure there are plenty more.

Differences aren't barriers.

First Up

First Up wrote: »

Which ones?

Exchange rate differentials and currency devaluation is a pretty bloody obvious one.

First Up wrote: »

Differences aren't barriers.

You're confusing tariffs with barriers to trade.

First Up

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

You're confusing tariffs with barriers to trade.

It depends how you define barrier. If it exists for the sole purpose of restricting or controlling something, its a barrier. But the side of the road you use (or the language you speak) are just differences that need to be surmounted.

Nate--IRL--

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

This report (sections 25-27) indicates that the Article 50 negotations include future relationship with the EU especially around the existing EU citizens in the UK and existing UK citizens in the EU

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/138/13805.htm#_idTextAnchor014

I know you'll think I'm being needlessly awkward, but I don't agree with Professor Wyatt's interpretation of the Article 50. I read the Article text as being purely a withdrawal process, with a nod toward Separate or following discussions on the future relationship framework.

That said if there are other legal opinions, especially from the EU side, I'd be very interested to read those too.

Nate

recedite

djpbarry wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of immigrants to the UK are vastly more educated and qualified than the average native. This idea that immigrants are generally unskilled and willing to work for peanuts is hopelessly out of date.

I wonder why all those "doctors and engineers" living in "The Jungle" of Calais failed to set up a thriving new colonial town then? I think there was a few shops and hairdressers, but that was about it.

Peregrinus wrote: »

With a free trade agreement there are no tariffs, but there may (and generally are) be significant non-tariff barriers and there is no commitment to free movement of goods, capital, services or people.

This is the "4 freedoms" mantra repeated by Junckers and co. But why 4?
Why not 1 freedom; the freedom to trade goods without punitive tariffs?
That's what Canada will have in the EU.

Or why not have "8 Freedoms"; add in the freedom of people to use a common currency, the freedom to pay the same income tax throughout the single market, to have a banking union, and to pool social welfare resources so that when capital and jobs take flight in one direction, social welfare payments go in the reverse direction. They have all of these in a proper federal system such as the USA.

The so called "4 freedoms" is not something set in stone, its just the half-arsed mantra that happens to be in vogue at the moment.

Sam Russell

First Up wrote: »

Differences aren't barriers.

Of course differences are barriers.

I, as an Irish resident, cannot buy a second hand car in France because the steering wheel is on the wrong side, but a German can. There is a significant price difference between second hand LHD and RHD cars.

After Brexit, we will have few EU places to buy RHD cars to supplement our poverty spec cars.

clarecoco

The European Union (EU) single market, allows the free movement of goods, services, money and people within the European Union (28 countries) as if it was a single country. This also simplifies the VAT aspect as Traders involved in the import and export of goods within the E.U. have responsibilities in both VIES and Intrastat regimes

All trade with non-EU countries require Customs documentation on import and export. There is also VAT at the point of entry applied on any consignments imported from a non-EU country.
This means import and export stations are required on the borders between the EU country and the non-EU country which will be the UK when it leaves. Any agricultural products coming from the UK will also require stringent agricultural checks to establish if the goods comply with Market access restrictions. These generally involve measures that protect domestic agriculture and products by restricting foreign imports.This will be a major issue in the Irish/Northern Ireland border.

The EU also has customs union agreements with Turkey, Unlike a free trade area—members of the customs union impose a common external tariff on all goods.Again Customs documents (SADs) are required so that also means border controls and custom import and export stations.

Norway, on the other hand, is part of the European Economic Area (EEA), which gives it access to the single market, but is not in the EU's customs union. In practice, this means that while most goods that originate in Norway can still be traded tariff-free to the rest of the European single market, products coming through Norway into the single market are subject to further checks as it is not a full EU member. There are Customs import and export stations between Norway and Sweden.

Once the UK triggers Article 50 to leave the EU, plans will then begin to put border controls in all EU external borders when the 2 years expire. It would not make sense for the EU member countries to give any exemption from this. For the EU to work the members have to be full participants and be covered and subject to EU legislation. When a country leaves the EU it leaves behind the requirements which it does not like, but also the benefits of participation in the EU single market.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Of course differences are barriers.

I, as an Irish resident, cannot buy a second hand car in France because the steering wheel is on the wrong side, but a German can. There is a significant price difference between second hand LHD and RHD cars.

After Brexit, we will have few EU places to buy RHD cars to supplement our poverty spec cars.

Why not?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055851552

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

The so called "4 freedoms" is not something set in stone, its just the half-arsed mantra that happens to be in vogue at the moment.

Someone needs to read the TFEU.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Of course differences are barriers.

I, as an Irish resident, cannot buy a second hand car in France because the steering wheel is on the wrong side, but a German can. There is a significant price difference between second hand LHD and RHD cars.

After Brexit, we will have few EU places to buy RHD cars to supplement our poverty spec cars.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055851552

It is pretty obvious why a LHD vehicle would not be a good purchase for use on Irish roads, unless I was trying to sweep them.

RHD vehicles are not permitted in Poland (I believe) and LHD ones should not be permitted here (for safety reasons).

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is pretty obvious why a LHD vehicle would not be a good purchase for use on Irish roads, unless I was trying to sweep them.

RHD vehicles are not permitted in Poland (I believe) and LHD ones should not be permitted here (for safety reasons).

They are. You do have the option of buying one. You said you could not.

That you would not, because it is more difficult/ less well suited and so would result in a premium increase is not the fault of the EU.

That something is not a good purchase is very different from a purchase that isn't permitted, which is what you first suggested.

Perhaps in the wake of Brexit we should fall into line with the EU instead of the UK and swap to LHD?

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

They are. You do have the option of buying one. You said you could not.

That you would not, because it is more difficult/ less well suited and so would result in a premium increase is not the fault of the EU.

That something is not a good purchase is very different from a purchase that isn't permitted, which is what you first suggested.

Perhaps in the wake of Brexit we should fall into line with the EU instead of the UK and swap to LHD?

Maybe we should drive on the right. We could phase it in over a few months with buses and lorries driving on the right for the first month with cars on the left, followed by cars going over as well for the 2nd month.

Give me a break.

If standards vary from one member state to another, that is a NTB. An example is the 13 amp plug. The UK used to use 240vac for electricity but had to change to 230 vac. Another problem is TV standards. There are loads of NTB if you look. The fact that manufacturers have to get round them adds to cost and so is anti-competitive.

The EU tries to eliminate them.

First Up

First Up wrote: »

It depends how you define barrier

I'm using the standard adapted in every economics textbook I've read since the Leaving cert.

First Up

Sam Russell wrote:

I, as an Irish resident, cannot buy a second hand car in France because the steering wheel is on the wrong side, but a German can. There is a significant price difference between second hand LHD and RHD cars.

You are perfectly free to buy such a car.

First Up

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

I'm using the standard adapted in every economics textbook I've read since the Leaving cert.

A barrier is something set up to block something. France driving on the right is not a barrier to me taking my Irish car on the ferry to Cherbourg and driving legally in France.

I do need to adjust my headlamp beams; that's called adapting to a different situation - same as me speaking French has a better chance of being understood than if I shout at them in English and berate them for putting a language barrier in my way.

First Up

First Up wrote: »

A barrier is something set up to block something. France driving on the right is not a barrier to me taking my Irish car on the ferry to Cherbourg and driving legally in France.

I do not care about steering wheels, I'm not familiar with the regulations on steering wheels, nor did I mention them, nor am I certain they are a barrier to trade.

I gave what is probably the most obvious example that most people probably think of in terms of EU Single Market barriers to trade, the Euro area and not the euro area, and currency manipulation.

First Up

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

I gave what is probably the most obvious example that most people probably think of in terms of EU Single Market barriers to trade, the Euro area and not the euro area, and currency manipulation.

The UK chose to stay out of the Euro area and were still able to be part of the single market. They placed themselves in a less advantaguous position but it was not a barrier.

First Up

First Up wrote: »

The UK chose to stay out of the Euro area and were still able to be part of the single market. They placed themselves in a less advantaguous position but it was not a barrier.

Trade barriers are almost always voluntary!

If the US has a mental breakdown and decides to place crazy tariffs on Chinese steel, it's a trade barrier!

Stop digging. Leave this alone now.

First Up

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

If the US goes has a mental breakdown and decides to ban Chinese steel, it's a trade barrier!

A ban on Chinese steel would indeed be a trade barrier. Not being able to speak Mandarin is not.

First Up

First Up wrote: »

Not being able to speak Mandarin is not.

Nobody said that. Seriously, you were confused about what constitutes a trade barrier, it's over. Individual personal choices are not trade barriers. Currency manipulation is. Other Trade Barriers exist inside the Single Market, and in almost all FTAs. You can probably never get rid of them entirely.

What is the point of all this?

First Up

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

Nobody said that. Seriously, you were confused about what constitutes a trade barrier, it's over. Individual personal choices are not trade barriers. Currency manipulation is. Other Trade Barriers exist inside the Single Market, and in almost all FTAs. You can probably never get rid of them entirely.

You can rest assured that I am very well aware of what is or is not a trade barrier.

solodeogloria

First Up wrote: »

The UK chose to stay out of the Euro area and were still able to be part of the single market. They placed themselves in a less advantaguous position but it was not a barrier.

Good evening!

Being outside the Euro was less advantageous?

Surely having sovereignty over their own monetary policy was the very reason why Britain emerged from the Euro crisis relatively unscathed and in better nick than many of it's counterparts across the Channel.

I mean yes, there are definite advantages in some respects to having a single currency but there are many downsides also.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

Someone needs to read the TFEU.

The single market is an ongoing process and the TFEU is an ever changing treaty.... until the final objective of federalisation is realised. Which may or may not be a good thing when/if it happens.
In the meantime, you can keep chanting the mantra of half-arsedness.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

The so called "4 freedoms" is not something set in stone, its just the half-arsed mantra that happens to be in vogue at the moment.

If you mean “at the moment” in the sense of “consistently since 1957” then, yes.

recedite wrote: »

This is the "4 freedoms" mantra repeated by Junckers and co. But why 4?
Why not 1 freedom; the freedom to trade goods without punitive tariffs?
That's what Canada will have in the EU.

You can have that if you want. It’s called a free trade agreement.

What you can’t do, though, is to pretend that it’s the same as, or that it confers the same benefits as, a single market founded on the four freedoms. As I pointed out in another post, it’s estimated that EU GDP is somewhere between 5% and 12% higher than it would be if they EU hadn’t constructed the single market in the 1990s. We might expect, therefore, that if the UK opts out of the single market and relies instead on a free trade regime, it will expose itself to non-tariff barriers which will icnrease the costs of trade, with the result that UK GDP will be lower than it would have been, had the UK remained in the single market.

That may be a price worth paying to secure whatever other advantages the UK looks for from Brexit in terms of autonomy, sovereignty, independence or whatever you want to call it. But what’s not respectable is denying that the UK is paying this price; pretending that leaving the EU costs nothing, or that the UK will be economically better off as a result of leaving the EU. That’s wildly unlikely to be the case.

I could respect a pro-Brexit stance which acknowledged the likely economic cost of Brexit but made a case to justify it; a stance which is in denial about the likely economic cost is either idiotic or dishonest.

recedite wrote: »

I wonder why all those "doctors and engineers" living in "The Jungle" of Calais failed to set up a thriving new colonial town then? I think there was a few shops and hairdressers, but that was about it.

Could it have something do to with the fact that, not being EU nationals, they didn’t enjoy the four freedoms? They had no right to work in France or to invest in France; they had no access to capital to start up enterprises; they had no right to travel to places where demand for their skills might have been stronger. You’ve picked a fairly extreme example that illustrates why the four freedoms do matter, and why being deprived of them tends to make you poorer.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

A barrier is something set up to block something. France driving on the right is not a barrier to me taking my Irish car on the ferry to Cherbourg and driving legally in France.

I do need to adjust my headlamp beams; that's called adapting to a different situation - same as me speaking French has a better chance of being understood than if I shout at them in English and berate them for putting a language barrier in my way.

No. A barrier to trade is anything which does in fact make trade more expense or more difficult, regardless of the intention behind it. The fact that different countries drive on different sides of the road does indeed give rise to a barrier to trade in cars; it requires car manufacturers to tool up to construct different models for different markets, and it means that cars constructed for one market can't easily be sold in another. (The fact that they can lawfully be sold doesn't alter the reality that few people will want to buy them.) All this adds to the cost of production and, therefore to the price of cars.

There used to be many, many more such barriers to trade, and the whole point of EU standardisation has been to reduce or eliminate them. As it happens, the RHD -v- LHD differences haven't been eliminated, because the cost of eliminating them would be huge, but probably 99% of similar barriers have been eliminated. Lots of boardies won't be old enough to remember that simple things like electrical plugs used to be different in Ireland and on the continent. That meant that either continental appliance manufacturers tooled up to produce slightly different products for the UK/Irish market, at additional cost, or they simply didn't produce them, in which case Irish consumer's choice was greatly reduced - we could only buy the (frequently crappy) British products. Individually these things are small, but collectively these barriers to trade imposed significant inefficiencies and costs both on producers and on consumers.

First Up

As I said it depends how you define a barrier. In terms of international trade, differences such as driving on the opposite side, different plugs or exchange rates do not qualify as barriers as defined under WTO.

When trade negotiaters gather, they discuss customs tariffs and harmonisation and mutual recognition of standards. Not the things that simply make countries different from each other.

And they use interpreters, not insist everyone speaks one language.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

As I said it depends how you define a barrier. In terms of international trade, differences such as driving on the opposite side, different plugs or exchange rates do not qualify as barriers as defined under WTO.

No, they're not barriers to trade in the sense that they are actionable under WTO rules.

But they very much are barriers to trade in the sense that they do, in fact, depress trade and make people poorer than they would be, were the barriers not in place. And in the context of Brexit, and opting out of the single market, that's the relevant sense of "barriers to trade".

In opting out of the single market, the UK is choosing to expose itself to barriers to trade which will disrupt its trade and make it poorer. There may (or may not) be good reasons for doing that, but any defence or justication for Brexit, and in particular for hard Brexit, has to accept that this is a real pheonomenon if it is to be credible.

First Up wrote: »

When trade negotiaters gather, they discuss customs tariffs and harmonisation and mutual recognition of standards. Not the things that simply make countries different from each other.

False dichotomy there. Having different standards (like, say, LHD rather than RHD for cars, or 220v rather than 240v for domestic power supplies) is one of the things that makes countries different from one another.

What you're saying here, though, is that trade negotiators tend to concentrate on certain barriers to trade while ignoring others. That depends on what they're trying to negotiate. If they are trying to identify and reduce or eliminate as many barriers to trade as possible, they'll be working towards a single market, and negotiating accordingly. If, as a matter of policy, one or both sides doesn't want a single market, then they'll be focussing on a narrower range of barriers to trade. That doesn't mean, though, that they things they decide not to address aren't barriers to trade; they certainly are.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

I could respect a pro-Brexit stance which acknowledged the likely economic cost of Brexit but made a case to justify it; a stance which is in denial about the likely economic cost is either idiotic or dishonest.

In general, I think many Brexiters seem well aware that there will be a cost, and I have seen some of them say straight out that it will be worth it to get immigration control back, which is at least honest.

What others seem to be doing, including in this thread, is getting ready to blame the EU for any costs. Since they have spent a generation blaming the EU for everything from straight bananas to economic recessions, I suppose this is to be expected.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, they're not barriers to trade in the sense that they are actionable under WTO rules.

But they very much are barriers to trade in the sense that they do, in fact, depress trade and make people poorer than they would be, were the barriers not in place. And in the context of Brexit, and opting out of the single market, that's the relevant sense of "barriers to trade".

In opting out of the single market, the UK is choosing to expose itself to barriers to trade which will disrupt its trade and make it poorer. There may (or may not) be good reasons for doing that, but any defence or justication for Brexit, and in particular for hard Brexit, has to accept that this is a real pheonomenon if it is to be credible.


False dichotomy there. Having different standards (like, say, LHD rather than RHD for cars, or 220v rather than 240v for domestic power supplies) is one of the things that makes countries different from one another.

What you're saying here, though, is that trade negotiators tend to concentrate on certain barriers to trade while ignoring others. That depends on what they're trying to negotiate. If they are trying to identify and reduce or eliminate as many barriers to trade as possible, they'll be working towards a single market, and negotiating accordingly. If, as a matter of policy, one or both sides doesn't want a single market, then they'll be focussing on a narrower range of barriers to trade. That doesn't mean, though, that they things they decide not to address aren't barriers to trade; they certainly are.

Trade negotiators are negotiating trading arrangements - nothing else. They are mandated to protect their national interests. For many weaker countries, a free trade agreement would be a disaster because they do not have the quantity or quality of goods or services to sell to others, while being unable to compete with imported goods in their home market.

A single market is something different - no protection, no exceptions; just the same rules of competition for everyone. The free movement of goods, capital and people is central to that.

The EU operates an internal single market (including different plugs and RHD/LHD cars) and has trade agreements in place with everywhere else. Two very different things.

The UK has opted for trade agreements only and will take their chances accordingly. Hopefully their negotiators will understand the difference a bit better than some contributors here.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you mean “at the moment” in the sense of “consistently since 1957” then, yes.

Nonsense, its an ever changing treaty; a set of moving goalposts.

Duty free movement of Goods;1993
Services; 2006

Peregrinus wrote: »

Could it have something do to with the fact that, not being EU nationals, they didn’t enjoy the four freedoms?

The reason they were in Calais and not in London is because they took advantage of the open borders within the Schengen Zone, and Calais is the westernmost border of the (now destroyed) Schengen concept.

Peregrinus wrote: »

... simple things like electrical plugs used to be different in Ireland and on the continent. That meant that either continental appliance manufacturers tooled up to produce slightly different products for the UK/Irish market, at additional cost.....

Eh..?
Are you posting from the future or something?
You must be a Political Officer of the European Federation