Brexit Referendum Superthread

Nate--IRL--

"Donald Trump’s trade chief has urged Britain’s rivals to exploit the “God-given opportunity” of Brexit to steal business from the UK."

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/use-brexit-to-steal-uk-trade-says-trump-aide-22rkpmfr7

Kinda points to the Opportunities for new trade deals afforded by Brexit.

Nate

solodeogloria

Good afternoon,

Given the tariff regime in the United States, why would it be a preferential country to move to post-Brexit?

The only sector that I think even has the slightest risk of this is financial services and New York (because the EU isn't likely to benefit hugely in that area).

In any case lots of countries want a free trade agreement with the UK, and if the UK can both arrange for a third country deal with the European Union, reject protectionist measures and line up countries (there are a lot that have expressed interest in trading arrangements with the UK already) who are interested in a trade deal after the negotiations conclude in 2019, there's a lot of reason for optimism. It just needs to be handled well. I agree that the UK should be 'self-confident'.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon,

In any case lots of countries want a free trade agreement with the UK, and if the UK can both arrange for a third country deal with the European Union, reject protectionist measures and line up countries (there are a lot that have expressed interest in trading arrangements with the UK already) who are interested in a trade deal after the negotiations conclude in 2019, there's a lot of reason for optimism. It just needs to be handled well. I agree that the UK should be 'self-confident'.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

And back in the real world, what possible reason would Trump & friends have for disadvantaging themselves in favour of the UK???  As someone at the economist once commented, the only reason the US plays fair in the WTO is because it is afraid the 500 lbs gorilla that is the EU will stop playing fair. Unless you are big enough to inflict pain on the US economy, you are not even going to be in the game for the next few years.
And then there is the estimated €60b that the UK will have to pay the EU, I'm betting that that will see the UK exit leaving the bill unpaid and little prospect of a trade deal.  With the new US attitude everything points to a trade wars and protectionism, a very bad time to be out in the cold seeking trade deals if you ask me.  Especially when you need the US and the EU to sign off on an WTO deal you might even get to a draft stage.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

It's phrases like "and back in the real world" that make me wonder if people on this thread believe that EU membership is the only way that a country can be successful!

Obviously that's false. Likewise the suggestion that countries outside the EU won't want good access to the British market is also obviously wrong.

The €60bn is a figure that has yet to be discussed. But it's hardly a figure that will destroy Britain and it is a short term cost. It also has nothing to do with the opportunities that Mervyn King describes outside of the EEA and customs union in the long term. Foresight for the long term will be key in the negotiations ahead.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon,

Given the tariff regime in the United States, why would it be a preferential country to move to post-Brexit?

The only sector that I think even has the slightest risk of this is financial services and New York (because the EU isn't likely to benefit hugely in that area).

Actually he was speaking with bankers in Cyprus (still in EU) and also highlighted Dublin and Frankfurt as two other cities who're likely to do their best to benefit from it all.

That's of course on top of the Japanese banks giving the ultimatum already and I expect several other banks will start moving functions out as I highly doubt said clarity will come anytime soon.

solodeogloria

Nody wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon,

Given the tariff regime in the United States, why would it be a preferential country to move to post-Brexit?

The only sector that I think even has the slightest risk of this is financial services and New York (because the EU isn't likely to benefit hugely in that area).

Actually he was speaking with bankers in Cyprus (still in EU) and also highlighted Dublin and Frankfurt as two other cities who're likely to do their best to benefit from it all.

That's of course on top of the Japanese banks giving the ultimatum already and I expect several other banks will start moving functions out as I highly doubt said clarity will come anytime soon.

Good evening,

I've responded to why I believe Dublin and Frankfurt won't make significant gains on the City of London in previous posts. I've also explained that New York would gain potentially because it is a global centre of investment banking whereas Frankfurt and Dublin don't have this infrastructure. Europe stands to be ignored in investment banking functions globally depending on how it deals with the City of London. I also cited Mark Carney explaining that EU member states would lose out by not having a global investment banking centre on it's doorstep. Most debt and securities trading that happens by member states happens in London and raising revenues won't happen without a major financial centre to do it in.

That aside - of course companies are concerned about their activities with the EU. However these concerns will be allayed and clarified during the Article 50 negotiations and subsequent deals not only with the EU but also countries that the UK doesn't have trade deals with.

The British public asked to come out of the EU. That's what will happen. It's future looks bright if they make the most of engaging the world which they will be able to do as a result of leaving for the first time since the 70s.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

marienbad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening,

whereas Frankfurt and Dublin don't have this infrastructure. Europe stands to be ignored in investment banking functions globally depending on how it deals with the City of London.

What infrastructure are you talking about ? And how can one the biggest trading blocs in the world be ignored ?

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening,

I've responded to why I believe Dublin and Frankfurt won't make significant gains on the City of London in previous posts. I've also explained that New York would gain potentially because it is a global centre of investment banking whereas Frankfurt and Dublin don't have this infrastructure. Europe stands to be ignored in investment banking functions globally depending on how it deals with the City of London. I also cited Mark Carney explaining that EU member states would lose out by not having a global investment banking centre on it's doorstep. Most debt and securities trading that happens by member states happens in London and raising revenues won't happen without a major financial centre to do it in.

Funny thing but most countries manage that just fine without a financial center next doors; I'm 110% certain that EU will and can raise capital without issues with or without London in EU. UK insurance firms and banks however are going to discover what it means to not be in EU in terms of legislation where they will have to follow multiple rules being under both UK and EU legislation while having no say in the EU legislation and no passporting rights to sell in EU directly.

That aside - of course companies are concerned about their activities with the EU. However these concerns will be allayed and clarified during the Article 50 negotiations and subsequent deals not only with the EU but also countries that the UK doesn't have trade deals with.

Except they don't have the time to wait which you appear to miss; short of an announcement by summer next year that Banks etc. will get an extended period they will need to start moving stuff out because it will take over a year to execute (they need to get license to operate, legal entity set up, application to local bank authorities etc. for all their current EU customers since their current legal entity can't be used nor can they sell to new customers in EU, new contracts with new legal base which means new legal review by the companies etc.). And that's confirmation from EU, not from the three stooges, and even then such a deal is under significant risk to get voted down by a local parliament which would put UK with no deal (even if one was originally negotiated). Hence even in the best of worlds there still significant risk that UK ends up with no deal simply because it gets voted down and the time runs out on the original 2 year time limit (remember short of all countries voting for an extension UK would end up with no deal in such scenario). Then of course UK need to try to join WTO which requires ALL countries to approve it; once again EU countries can here start to veto it until they get the concessions they want / simply to piss in UKs cornflakes due to the negotiation (and that's before we talk the likes of Argentine making a political drama of it all for home benefits).

The British public asked to come out of the EU. That's what will happen. It's future looks bright if they make the most of engaging the world which they will be able to do as a result of leaving for the first time since the 70s.

To bad the rest of the world are not living in the 70s any more and if anything has become even more protectionist in attitude; but by all means feel free to offer no tolls while the other countries will protect everything they care about with tolls on their side.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

It's phrases like "and back in the real world" that make me wonder if people on this thread believe that EU membership is the only way that a country can be successful!

Obviously that's false. Likewise the suggestion that countries outside the EU won't want good access to the British market is also obviously wrong.

The €60bn is a figure that has yet to be discussed. But it's hardly a figure that will destroy Britain and it is a short term cost. It also has nothing to do with the opportunities that Mervyn King describes outside of the EEA and customs union in the long term. Foresight for the long term will be key in the negotiations ahead.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

No what it means is that you need to wake up and start dealing with reality:
- The UK has not produced a positive balance of trade in over twenty years
- It has the third worst record in contract closing just a head of Greece and Malta
- It 48% of it's exports are to a relatively wealthy market, in close proximity and from a preferential position, which it is about to walk away from
- Article 3(c) of the treaty of Rome requires free movement, it's in black and white, despite what Boris and friend would like to believe and without all member states agreement, plus the EU parliament and three national referenda, that is not going to change
- Article 50(3) Clearly states "The treaties shall cease..." so the BS the UK politicians keep on about staying in the single market or the customs union or event the EEA, is not even close to reality.
- Of course everyone want's to sell you their s**t, but don't for a minute expect that EU politicians are going to agree to anything that disadvantages their citizens, epically on the brink of a trade war.
- 60b would add another 50% to the projected deficit of 120b, but more importantly Boris and friends would have to agree to it and that is going to be one hard ask given their prior claims.
- As for other deals, unless you are going to deal only with 12 not WTO states, such deals will have to involve all that standard rules including most favoured nation status.  And that is of use if the UK's full membership is accepted.
- Mrs. May's lukewarm reception in her few trade missing and the new US's stance on trade, suggests that the UK will be most definitely not be dealing from an like a position of strength.

solodeogloria

Jim2007 wrote: »

No what it means is that you need to wake up and start dealing with reality:
- The UK has not produced a positive balance of trade in over twenty years
- It has the third worst record in contract closing just a head of Greece and Malta
- It 48% of it's exports are to a relatively wealthy market, in close proximity and from a preferential position, which it is about to walk away from
- Article 3(c) of the treaty of Rome requires free movement, it's in black and white, despite what Boris and friend would like to believe and without all member states agreement, plus the EU parliament and three national referenda, that is not going to change
- Article 50(3) Clearly states "The treaties shall cease..." so the BS the UK politicians keep on about staying in the single market or the customs union or event the EEA, is not even close to reality.
- Of course everyone want's to sell you their s**t, but don't for a minute expect that EU politicians are going to agree to anything that disadvantages their citizens, epically on the brink of a trade war.
- 60b would add another 50% to the projected deficit of 120b, but more importantly Boris and friends would have to agree to it and that is going to be one hard ask given their prior claims.
- As for other deals, unless you are going to deal only with 12 not WTO states, such deals will have to involve all that standard rules including most favoured nation status.  And that is of use if the UK's full membership is accepted.
- Mrs. May's lukewarm reception in her few trade missing and the new US's stance on trade, suggests that the UK will be most definitely not be dealing from an like a position of strength.

Good morning,

I think people need to acknowledge the fact that there are clear opportunities from Brexit in addition to risks. There are also plenty of internal risks both inside the Eurozone and the European Union at the moment too.

The first point - balance of trade - is only based on the trade of goods. Britain is a huge trader of services. In light of globalisation and off shoring of manufacturing that makes sense. So yes, I agree Britain isn't as big a manufacturer as it was 20 years ago but to claim that means Britain's economy has gone to the dogs is ridiculous.

44% of it's exports go to the European Union. The European Union accounts for 53% of imports into the European Union. Even with no deal Britain would still trade with the EU. It's in nobody's interest to get no deal so I suspect there will be a third country deal with the UK which will be bespoke on the basis of discussion. This means like Canada it will get good access into the single market without being a member of either the EEA or the customs union. This would also allow the UK to conduct new deals with other countries.

The Treaty of Rome is only applicable if the UK wants single market membership. The reason why Liam Fox was given a job in cabinet was because the UK clearly wants to create trade deals with new countries which isn't permitted while being an EU member or a member of the customs union.

I agree with you on Article 50(3). Having said that it needs to be tested in the courts. I think it is better for the UK in the long term to quit the EEA and the customs union.

Free trade with the UK doesn't disadvantage EU citizens. I am Irish and as a result an EU citizen. I think it's in our interest that the UK gets the best possible trade deal. Don't you? Bear in mind the UK hasn't asked for a trade war. The EU are the only ones threatening tariffs.

I don't believe that the UK will agree to pay €60bn. A deal on that basis won't be accepted. Theresa May says she won't accept it before the negotiations have started. Everyone's going to have their starting hand but the end result will look quite different.

On the WTO point. Britain was a founding member of the WTO. It was a member of the WTO before the EU. It is a member now. What makes you think it won't be after Brexit? What makes you think all the members of the WTO aren't interested in trading with Britain on the same terms? You claim that I'm not the one dealing with reality?

The new US administration are looking forward to a trade deal with Britain. Even mainline Republicans like Paul Ryan are asking for this. Judging America's intentions under Trump based on what his trade secretary said about other EU countries before his appointment is daft. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India amongst others have expressed interest in a free trade deal with the UK. The fact is if Britain rejects EU protectionist measures there are lots and lots of opportunities outside the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

I think people need to acknowledge the fact that there are clear opportunities from Brexit in addition to risks. There are also plenty of internal risks both inside the Eurozone and the European Union at the moment too.

Care to mention a trade deal UK pushed for that did not happen due to EU? Since these are the so called missed opportunities there must be a long laundry list of them after all (esp. seeing the fiasco in India).

The first point - balance of trade - is only based on the trade of goods. Britain is a huge trader of services. In light of globalisation and off shoring of manufacturing that makes sense. So yes, I agree Britain isn't as big a manufacturer as it was 20 years ago but to claim that means Britain's economy has gone to the dogs is ridiculous.

Services which will have to adhere to EU rules, be delivered in EU countries under EU courts to EU standards and possibly from EU entities. Already since July you hear of companies and researchers having trouble with getting funding/having funding withdrawn/being asked to leave projects while at the same time people refusing to travel to UK due to Brexit and not showing up for positions they previously accepted. That's showing reduced confidence in UK's ability to fund and get the top talents for said services rather than the other way around.

44% of it's exports go to the European Union. The European Union accounts for 53% of imports into the European Union. Even with no deal Britain would still trade with the EU. It's in nobody's interest to get no deal so I suspect there will be a third country deal with the UK which will be bespoke on the basis of discussion. This means like Canada it will get good access into the single market without being a member of either the EEA or the customs union. This would also allow the UK to conduct new deals with other countries.

Which still has to pass through all parliaments and if any single one of them refuses (national stance, against EU etc. which are all undercurrents gathering strength atm) UK will end up with no deal because those 2 years are ticking away either way.

The Treaty of Rome is only applicable if the UK wants single market membership. The reason why Liam Fox was given a job in cabinet was because the UK clearly wants to create trade deals with new countries which isn't permitted while being an EU member or a member of the customs union.

Once again show the trade deals UK pushed for within EU that did not happen; because the likes of India sure don't see UK being outside of EU as some huge boon for trading.

Free trade with the UK doesn't disadvantage EU citizens. I am Irish and as a result an EU citizen. I think it's in our interest that the UK gets the best possible trade deal. Don't you? Bear in mind the UK hasn't asked for a trade war. The EU are the only ones threatening tariffs.

UK did ask for a trade war; they asked to eat the cake and keep it remember? They want all the benefits but none of the cost for access to said market.

I don't believe that the UK will agree to pay €60bn. A deal on that basis won't be accepted. Theresa May says she won't accept it before the negotiations have started. Everyone's going to have their starting hand but the end result will look quite different.

Once again guess how well that will go down with every country's parliament to accept to fund UK leaving and paying more money to EU which is tied to the trade deal approval. This is only setting up to ensure any trade deal is that much more likely to be vetoed.

On the WTO point. Britain was a founding member of the WTO. It was a member of the WTO before the EU. It is a member now. What makes you think it won't be after Brexit?

Because UK is a member in WTO via it's membership of EU as well; once they leave the EU they need to sort out the EU areas of responsibility (such as tariffs, quotas etc.) as an individual nation again which require full consensus. This has already clearly been spelled out so I'm surprised you've not seen that.

What makes you think all the members of the WTO aren't interested in trading with Britain on the same terms? You claim that I'm not the one dealing with reality?

Because in today's environment every nation wants to protect their own stuff with high tariffs while selling with no tariffs to other nations. Heck only have to look at Trump coming in as president and how he handles companies considering moving out as an example in the "Free trade nation of the world".

The new US administration are looking forward to a trade deal with Britain. Even mainline Republicans like Paul Ryan are asking for this. Judging America's intentions under Trump based on what his trade secretary said about other EU countries before his appointment is daft. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India amongst others have expressed interest in a free trade deal with the UK. The fact is if Britain rejects EU protectionist measures there are lots and lots of opportunities outside the EU.

Funny you mention USA; the nation that's actively seeking to punish companies leaving it's soil, or India which has expressed doubts about UK's worth as a priority partner after Brexit as listed above esp. after the disastrous trade meeting. Canada already has the relevant trade agreement with EU as it is so what exactly do you expect UK to gain beyond what's in the EU agreement already in place and available? NZ had 1.1 billion GPB of imports from UK and about 1.7 billion exports to UK; not exactly the 220 billion of EU export there now is it? All we keep hearing from you is that free trade will magically fix everything yet we've yet to see any nation of significant trade that does not have a EU trade deal today listed that's suppose to take all this new export if only the tariffs (average around 10%) drops...

oscarBravo

solodeogloria wrote: »

Bear in mind the UK hasn't asked for a trade war. The EU are the only ones threatening tariffs.

I think it's this sort of disingenuousness that so many people find intensely frustrating about the whole Brexit conversation. It's a bit like the whole "nobody wants a hard land border on the island of Ireland" meaningless talking point: it doesn't matter that nobody wants it; not wanting something rarely if ever prevents it.

So, no: the UK hasn't asked for a trade war, in the same sense that a party to a divorce who starts off by demanding the house, both cars and custody of the kids hasn't asked for a protracted and painful legal battle.

It's utterly bizarre how some people believe the UK can get a better deal outside the EU than it could as a member. Ask yourself this: if you could get all the benefits of membership of (say) a golf club without having to pay the membership fees or agree to its rules, would you join? Would anyone? Would the club continue to exist?

The EU can't and won't give the UK a better deal as an ex-member than it did as a member. That's not pettiness or spite; it's an existential imperative. People need to stop pretending that it's going to happen. It can't, and it won't.

solodeogloria

Good morning,

Nody wrote: »

Care to mention a trade deal UK pushed for that did not happen due to EU? Since these are the so called missed opportunities there must be a long laundry list of them after all (esp. seeing the fiasco in India).

My point is that under EU rules member states can't sign free trade deals with other countries if they are in the European Union or the EU customs union. It's illegal under EU law to conduct these deals. That is why I think it's better to come out.

Nody wrote: »

Services which will have to adhere to EU rules, be delivered in EU countries under EU courts to EU standards and possibly from EU entities. Already since July you hear of companies and researchers having trouble with getting funding/having funding withdrawn/being asked to leave projects while at the same time people refusing to travel to UK due to Brexit and not showing up for positions they previously accepted. That's showing reduced confidence in UK's ability to fund and get the top talents for said services rather than the other way around.

Nobody has an issue with selling goods and services to the EU that conform to EU standards in the same way that I don't object to selling goods and services to the US that conform to American standards. I don't get why this is meant to be a surprise.

Nody wrote: »

Which still has to pass through all parliaments and if any single one of them refuses (national stance, against EU etc. which are all undercurrents gathering strength atm) UK will end up with no deal because those 2 years are ticking away either way.

CETA managed it and I think a UK deal would manage it. I think it will take a longer time than 2 years. Hence why I also support a transitional arrangement as Philip Hammond is a proponent of. Michel Barnier and Guy Verhofstadt seem open to this idea also.

Nody wrote: »

Once again show the trade deals UK pushed for within EU that did not happen; because the likes of India sure don't see UK being outside of EU as some huge boon for trading.

I've explained this above.

Nody wrote: »

UK did ask for a trade war; they asked to eat the cake and keep it remember? They want all the benefits but none of the cost for access to said market.

I think you need to understand what a "trade war" actually means in economics. You can look up the Anglo-Irish Trade War in the 1930's for an example of one that harmed Ireland greatly. The UK aren't asking for tariffs.

Nody wrote: »

Once again guess how well that will go down with every country's parliament to accept to fund UK leaving and paying more money to EU which is tied to the trade deal approval. This is only setting up to ensure any trade deal is that much more likely to be vetoed.

Again I think this will happen. I don't see why a CETA arrangement would involve fees to the EU. Are Canada going to pay fees? If so can you show that?

Nody wrote: »

Because in today's environment every nation wants to protect their own stuff with high tariffs while selling with no tariffs to other nations. Heck only have to look at Trump coming in as president and how he handles companies considering moving out as an example in the "Free trade nation of the world".

"Every nation". Really? There's no countries that want a free trade deal?

Nody wrote: »

Funny you mention USA; the nation that's actively seeking to punish companies leaving it's soil, or India which has expressed doubts about UK's worth as a priority partner after Brexit as listed above esp. after the disastrous trade meeting. Canada already has the relevant trade agreement with EU as it is so what exactly do you expect UK to gain beyond what's in the EU agreement already in place and available? NZ had 1.1 billion GPB of imports from UK and about 1.7 billion exports to UK; not exactly the 220 billion of EU export there now is it? All we keep hearing from you is that free trade will magically fix everything yet we've yet to see any nation of significant trade that does not have a EU trade deal today listed that's suppose to take all this new export if only the tariffs (average around 10%) drops...

These are the countries that have expressed free trade agreements with the UK. As for trade volumes - you do realise that countries sign free trade agreements to increase trade don't you?

Free trade agreements aren't about fixing anything but about making the UK more prosperous as it has free trade agreements with more trade partners around the world. As you know free trade deals are tariff free. So if the UK gets the right deal with the EU and creates new deals with other countries then I think the UK will be better off and more outward looking in 20 years time.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think it's this sort of disingenuousness that so many people find intensely frustrating about the whole Brexit conversation. It's a bit like the whole "nobody wants a hard land border on the island of Ireland" meaningless talking point: it doesn't matter that nobody wants it; not wanting something rarely if ever prevents it.

So, no: the UK hasn't asked for a trade war, in the same sense that a party to a divorce who starts off by demanding the house, both cars and custody of the kids hasn't asked for a protracted and painful legal battle.

It's utterly bizarre how some people believe the UK can get a better deal outside the EU than it could as a member. Ask yourself this: if you could get all the benefits of membership of (say) a golf club without having to pay the membership fees or agree to its rules, would you join? Would anyone? Would the club continue to exist?

The EU can't and won't give the UK a better deal as an ex-member than it did as a member. That's not pettiness or spite; it's an existential imperative. People need to stop pretending that it's going to happen. It can't, and it won't.

Good morning,

Last post for today:

Did I say that the third country deal would have the same access into the single market as membership? No, I didn't.

But it's an option that would allow free trade to continue on key products and an option that would allow the UK to forge bigger trade deals with other countries that they are not permitted to do whilst members of the EU.

I think that will be better for the UK in the long run. Definitely. There are lots of brilliant opportunities with new sovereignty in this area.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

MRnotlob606

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

Last post for today:

Did I say that the third country deal would have the same access into the single market as membership? No, I didn't.

But it's an option that would allow free trade to continue on key products and an option that would allow the UK to forge bigger trade deals with other countries that they are not permitted to do whilst members of the EU.

I think that will be better for the UK in the long run. Definitely. There are lots of brilliant opportunities with new sovereignty in this area.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

How many times you gonna say good morning? what happens after 12 am?:pac:

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think it's this sort of disingenuousness that so many people find intensely frustrating about the whole Brexit conversation. It's a bit like the whole "nobody wants a hard land border on the island of Ireland" meaningless talking point: it doesn't matter that nobody wants it; not wanting something rarely if ever prevents it.

So, no: the UK hasn't asked for a trade war, in the same sense that a party to a divorce who starts off by demanding the house, both cars and custody of the kids hasn't asked for a protracted and painful legal battle.

It's utterly bizarre how some people believe the UK can get a better deal outside the EU than it could as a member. Ask yourself this: if you could get all the benefits of membership of (say) a golf club without having to pay the membership fees or agree to its rules, would you join? Would anyone? Would the club continue to exist?

The EU can't and won't give the UK a better deal as an ex-member than it did as a member. That's not pettiness or spite; it's an existential imperative. People need to stop pretending that it's going to happen. It can't, and it won't.

Good morning,

Last post for today:

Did I say that the third country deal would have the same access into the single market as membership? No, I didn't.

But it's an option that would allow free trade to continue on key products and an option that would allow the UK to forge bigger trade deals with other countries that they are not permitted to do whilst members of the EU.

I think that will be better for the UK in the long run. Definitely. There are lots of brilliant opportunities with new sovereignty in this area.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

There is no such thing as free trade unless you want to try and do a deal with the 12 non WTO states.  Whether the UK regains full WTO status or not, they will not be in a position to negotiate a better deal with a WTO member than as part of the EU because the rules will not change.  In fact the only way to get a better deal would be to inter into a customs union, which would defeat the purpose....  Very quietly, Liam Fox admits the Brexit lie
You keep banging on about the benefits for the UK, but you fail to provide an good reason why the EU should disadvantage itself for a trade deal with a third country such as the UK???  There is no reason we should treat them any differently and in any case with 48% of their trading going to the EU, their desperate need for passporting and the unlikely chance that Trump will agree to anything but a good deal for America when it comes to agreeing UK WTO membership and trade talks, they are the ones desperate for a deal as we can see from the begging letter.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon,

Again - why do you think the UK would have massive issues gaining WTO status. It was a founding member even before the EU. There's no good reason as to why WTO members would want less preferential access to British trade.

This is where I think the mythology of the doom and gloom brigade really isn't a reflection of reality.

There are several opportunities for Britain (not without risks) post-Brexit. It's time that people were honest and accepted that.

The EU wouldn't be "disadvantaging itself" by negotiating a deal to sell products from the EU into the UK on a favourable basis in the same way as it wasn't "disadvantaging" itself in respect to Canada.

The reality is that the UK can and most probably will continue to be a successful country outside of the EU. The people have spoken, therefore I've decided to stop moaning that the vote didn't go my way and support the British government in getting the very best deal.

I don't believe the fear mongering that the sky is going to fall in, precisely because it is unfounded tosh.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon,

Again - why do you think the UK would have massive issues gaining WTO status. It was a founding member even before the EU. There's no good reason as to why WTO members would want less preferential access to British trade.

This is where I think the mythology of the doom and gloom brigade really isn't a reflection of reality.

There are several opportunities for Britain (not without risks) post-Brexit. It's time that people were honest and accepted that.

The EU wouldn't be "disadvantaging itself" by negotiating a deal to sell products from the EU into the UK on a favourable basis in the same way as it wasn't "disadvantaging" itself in respect to Canada.

The reality is that the UK can and most probably will continue to be a successful country outside of the EU. The people have spoken, therefore I've decided to stop moaning that the vote didn't go my way and support the British government in getting the very best deal.

I don't believe the fear mongering that the sky is going to fall in, precisely because it is unfounded tosh.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Do you actually understand what is involved in gaining WTO membership???  The UK will have to get the other 120+ to agree to all the UK's current agreements before it can even get to a point where it can negotiate with the other members.  That is why Liam Fox is now proposing to accept all EU deals as their own and apply for membership on that basis.  From the statistics it will take 3 to 5 years to achieve (3 being the shortest time ever for admitting a member and 5 being the average).  At that point the UK will be in exactly the same position as it is today - constraint by WTO rules and most favoured nation status in all future deals in inters into.  So there is no way it can get a better deal that the EU gets for it today, because the rules and the time frame for this things are exactly the same in both cases.  So where are these great new deals to come from?????  The only way it can get a better deal is to inter into come kind of customs union with some WTO member states and if it does that it's ability to make future deals will be restricted, just as they are today.
Like pretty much every EU citizen on mainland Europe, we don't really care what way the vote in the UK went, we are interested in getting the best deal possible for us.  And it most certainly is not to our advantage to allow the UK to have unrestricted access to the single market without it being subject to the rules, regulations and supervision of that market, but that is what the UK appears to expect - they don't a Canada, Turkey, Switzerland, EEA deal.  
Furthermore they want access to the financial services market, which has never been part of any trade agreement and which has not progressed within the EU mainly because of objections by the UK to London being subject to ECB regulations and supervision plus transaction taxes etc... and now as third country they expect to get this???  It would create financial risk and inequality in the market if we were to allow one of the main players to take part without they being subject to the same conditions as everyone else.  There is simply no way we are going to disadvantage ourselves in this way.
So what exactly are these great advantages outside the EU in concrete terms, not just your matra for a change!

solodeogloria

Jim2007 wrote: »

Do you actually understand what is involved in gaining WTO membership???  The UK will have to get the other 120+ to agree to all the UK's current agreements before it can even get to a point where it can negotiate with the other members.  That is why Liam Fox is now proposing to accept all EU deals as their own and apply for membership on that basis.  From the statistics it will take 3 to 5 years to achieve (3 being the shortest time ever for admitting a member and 5 being the average).  At that point the UK will be in exactly the same position as it is today - constraint by WTO rules and most favoured nation status in all future deals in inters into.  So there is no way it can get a better deal that the EU gets for it today, because the rules and the time frame for this things are exactly the same in both cases.  So where are these great new deals to come from?????  The only way it can get a better deal is to inter into come kind of customs union with some WTO member states and if it does that it's ability to make future deals will be restricted, just as they are today.
Like pretty much every EU citizen on mainland Europe, we don't really care what way the vote in the UK went, we are interested in getting the best deal possible for us.  And it most certainly is not to our advantage to allow the UK to have unrestricted access to the single market without it being subject to the rules, regulations and supervision of that market, but that is what the UK appears to expect - they don't a Canada, Turkey, Switzerland, EEA deal.  
Furthermore they want access to the financial services market, which has never been part of any trade agreement and which has not progressed within the EU mainly because of objections by the UK to London being subject to ECB regulations and supervision plus transaction taxes etc... and now as third country they expect to get this???  It would create financial risk and inequality in the market if we were to allow one of the main players to take part without they being subject to the same conditions as everyone else.  There is simply no way we are going to disadvantage ourselves in this way.
So what exactly are these great advantages outside the EU in concrete terms, not just your matra for a change!

Good afternoon,

Again, I don't see why any of those 120 countries would want to make it particularly difficult for the UK to remain in the WTO as a fully fledged member. Are you suggesting that any of those countries would want a more difficult trading relationship with the UK?

Moreover, the point of adopting all the external tariffs that the EU currently set is a logical one. The first point would be to say that they only apply in the absence of a free trade agreement. They are a base line for trading with countries in the absence of a trade agreement. It makes sense to maintain the same tariffs for rejoining irrespective of whether or not there would be a "trade dispute" upon altering them.

The idea that the UK is going to have huge issues rejoining the WTO is a red herring.

Roberto Azevedo, head of WTO wrote:

"The UK is a member of the WTO today, it will continue to be a member tomorrow. There will be no discontinuity in membership.

"They have to renegotiate (their terms of membership) but that doesn't mean they are not members.

"Trade will not stop, it will continue and members negotiate the legal basis under which that trade is going to happen. But it doesn't mean that we'll have a vacuum or a disruption."

...

"It's very difficult to predict but my understanding is that the UK government is fully aware of all that, we have been talking, they know of these complexities and they're trying to handle it in the best way they can.

"I told (Trade Secretary Liam Fox) that I myself and the WTO secretariat will be available to make the transition as smooth as possible.

"Then we have been in touch, not every day, but clearly there will be a very dynamic relationship in the future."

The UK will remain a member of the WTO irrespective of whether or not Brexit will happen. I suspect maintaining tariffs would be to ensure that the terms of membership discussion would go by fairly smoothly.

Remaining in the customs union would only be good for conducting trade with the rest of the EU. It effectively closes free trade with the rest of the world though. Obviously, this is why I think a third country deal with opportunities for conducting new free trade deals is much, much better than remaining chained to Brussels by the back door.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Sand

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon,Again, I don't see why any of those 120 countries would want to make it particularly difficult for the UK to remain in the WTO as a fully fledged member.

It effectively closes free trade with the rest of the world though. Obviously, this is why I think a third country deal with opportunities for conducting new free trade deals is much, much better than remaining chained to Brussels by the back door.

Quick question - what natural trading partners do you think the UK have that are not already tapped? What additionally is the UK going to offer them that it is not offering them today?

India for example was built up by May but there is very little mutual benefit there. The UK does not want whats left of its manufacturing base destroyed by competition with far cheaper Indian manufacturing. The Indians have zero interest in the UK's service industry. The Indians do want to encourage further visas and migration to the UK (all the better to boost their human capital) but if Brexiteers have been consistent on anything its that the UK does not want any further immigration. If anything it wants to reduce numbers from India. The hostile response May experienced in India was summed up by the Indian attitude that the British want our money but they don't want our people.

So what is it the UK is going to offer India to secure these new opportunities? What is it going to offer the US when the 'City of London' increasingly migrates to the City of Frankfurt, or the City of Paris or to a lesser extent the City of Dublin? What are they going to offer China? Or Brazil?

All I see from the Brexiteers wide eyed refusal to acknowledge that any other state can have an agenda that does not comply with the UK's self interest. That's incredibly naive.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Last post for today:

Sand wrote: »

Quick question - what natural trading partners do you think the UK have that are not already tapped? What additionally is the UK going to offer them that it is not offering them today?

Tariff free trading into Britain and vice-versa. That's typically what a free trade agreement is for. That's a huge advantage. Manufacturers and traders from both countries get to sell goods and services inside the other country without being penalised.

Sand wrote: »

India for example was built up by May but there is very little mutual benefit there. The UK does not want whats left of its manufacturing base destroyed by competition with far cheaper Indian manufacturing. The Indians have zero interest in the UK's service industry. The Indians do want to encourage further visas and migration to the UK (all the better to boost their human capital) but if Brexiteers have been consistent on anything its that the UK does not want any further immigration. If anything it wants to reduce numbers from India. The hostile response May experienced in India was summed up by the Indian attitude that the British want our money but they don't want our people.

Free trade agreements typically don't involve free movement of people. The only group that seems to have conflated both together is the European Union in respect to the single market. The UK already give a large number of tier 2 visas to a lot of Indians coming into the country.

It simply isn't true to say that tariff free access into the UK doesn't have "mutual benefit" for India.

In fact, I think every comment saying that a free trade relationship with the UK is of little "mutual benefit" to other countries isn't based on facts or on reality. It's based on a view that the UK isn't an important power in the world, when it clearly is.

Sand wrote: »

So what is it the UK is going to offer India to secure these new opportunities? What is it going to offer the US when the 'City of London' increasingly migrates to the City of Frankfurt, or the City of Paris or to a lesser extent the City of Dublin? What are they going to offer China? Or Brazil?

Obviously the details will have to be hammered out, and it's premature to say what form all of these trade deals will exactly have because they aren't able to be conducted, but it's a nonsense to say that having the freedom to form free trade deals with other non-EU countries isn't a significant opportunity for the UK, and it's also a nonsense to say that tariff free access into the UK market isn't a huge advantage to Indian business as well as British business.

Edit: I don't believe London won't be a global centre of finance after Brexit and I don't think Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin will make significant gains on it. See previous posts for that. I'm personally not particularly worried in respect to my future in the UK and I don't think anyone else should be.

Sand wrote: »

All I see from the Brexiteers wide eyed refusal to acknowledge that any other state can have an agenda that does not comply with the UK's self interest. That's incredibly naive.

Of course other countries will have their own agenda. But it's simply untrue to say that India or other countries don't want to conduct a good free trade deal with the UK or that there's "little mutual benefit" in doing so.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!
Tariff free trading into Britain and vice-versa. That's typically what a free trade agreement is for. That's a huge advantage. Manufacturers and traders from both countries get to sell goods and services inside the other country without being penalised.

Except India has one of the most complex and difficult tariffs in place and has negotiated with EU for over a decade without success so far. Hence if UK wants to offer tariff free import from India and India gets to keep all tariffs you'll get a relatively quick deal; if you want tariff free deals both ways you'll be waiting a very very long time for that to happen.

Free trade agreements typically don't involve free movement of people. The only group that seems to have conflated both together is the European Union in respect to the single market. The UK already give a large number of tier 2 visas to a lot of Indian's coming into the country.

Except India has said straight out that they will insist on far higher immigration of Indians to UK as part of any trade deal...

It simply isn't true to say that tariff free access into the UK doesn't have "mutual benefit" for India.

In fact, I think every comment saying that a free trade relationship with the UK is of little "mutual benefit" to other countries isn't based on facts or on reality. It's based on a view that the UK isn't an important power in the world, when it clearly is.

See above; if UK wants to set their tariffs to zero across the board no one will stop them but don't expect any other countries to do the same in return; this is the part that appears to fly over your head over and over again. Most countries have tariffs today to protect their own industry (see India) or as protection from unfair advantage (see US/EU vs. China). That's not going to change by UK coming along and saying "Hey we'll offer you zero tariff trade if you do the same" because they will simply not do it (India) or promise to do it and break the promise (China). UK will also spend at least five years simply to get the existing trade deals they have access to via EU set up again (and five years is optimistic) before all these new magical trade deals will even start to be discussed (since the existing trade deals are done with the biggest trading partners and hence take priority).

Obviously the details will have to be hammered out, and it's premature to say what form all of these trade deals will exactly have because they aren't able to be conducted, but it's a nonsense to say that having the freedom to form free trade deals with other non-EU countries isn't a significant opportunity for the UK, and it's also a nonsense to say that tariff free access into the UK market isn't a huge advantage to Indian business as well as British business.

Except you're missing the point again as EU already negotiated the free trade deals with the important partners with a market waaay larger on the table than UK where possible; if there's not a free trade deal today (see India) then chances are UK will get nothing either. Or the deal will be no tariffs to import to UK and India gets to keep all their current tariffs; is that the deal you think will benefit UK somehow?

Of course other countries will have their own agenda. But it's simply untrue to say that India or other countries don't want to conduct a good free trade deal with the UK or that there's "little mutual benefit" in doing so.

They would much rather have it with all of EU than UK alone and yet India still has no deal; that should tell you something.

KingBrian2

When the EU negotiated trade deals it was when Britain was part of the Union so with Britain leaving this changes the situation. Some deals can stay in force but with the Britain less EU the Commission is going to have make modifications. The most important deal at this stage will be the UK-EU agreement and once that is complete markets like India, Brazil, Mexico, Egypt, Russia and Indonesia are all potential areas of growth for the EU to trade with and enhance relations with.

Nate--IRL--

KingBrian2 wrote: »

When the EU negotiated trade deals it was when Britain was part of the Union so with Britain leaving this changes the situation. Some deals can stay in force but with the Britain less EU the Commission is going to have make modifications.

This is interesting - got any more details? I wonder, under which terms existing deals now need to be modified? How will these modifications affect Ireland?

The Media has been suspiciously quiet about the EU making changes to existing deals.

Nate

KingBrian2

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

This is interesting - got any more details? I wonder, under which terms existing deals now need to be modified? How will these modifications affect Ireland?

The Media has been suspiciously quiet about the EU making changes to existing deals.

Nate

Europe is in need of a revival and the member states need to be better served by their elected representatives. Europe is fortunate in having so many people travelling through European cities from around the world. By fostering closer ties with countries like Brazil & Egypt we can change their economies, improve their environmental standards while at the same time we in Europe can grow and spend the additional windfalls on national budget demands.

Nate--IRL--

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Europe is in need of a revival and the member states need to be better served by their elected representatives. Europe is fortunate in having so many people travelling through European cities from around the world. By fostering closer ties with countries like Brazil & Egypt we can change their economies, improve their environmental standards while at the same time we in Europe can grow and spend the additional windfalls on national budget demands.

I agree.

However it doesn't answer the question I asked. How are the changes you say the EU must make to existing trade deals, made before Brexit, going to affect Ireland?

Nate

Sand

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Last post for today:

Tariff free trading into Britain and vice-versa. That's typically what a free trade agreement is for. That's a huge advantage. Manufacturers and traders from both countries get to sell goods and services inside the other country without being penalised.

Yes, so whats left of UK manufacturers, agriculture and industry relocate to India, slashing wages and cost base and sell their goods into the UK. How does this benefit UK workers and farmers who lose their jobs exactly?

In fact, I think every comment saying that a free trade relationship with the UK is of little "mutual benefit" to other countries isn't based on facts or on reality. It's based on a view that the UK isn't an important power in the world, when it clearly is.

Actually its based on the UK's natural trading partners being countries similar to itself - i.e. the EU. Rather than nations with whom it cannot compete on costs, and whom do not wish to open their service markets. The Brexit view is based on the assumption that the EU is not a critical part of the UKs economic prosperity, when it clearly is.

Edit: I don't believe London won't be a global centre of finance after Brexit and I don't think Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin will make significant gains on it. See previous posts for that. I'm personally not particularly worried in respect to my future in the UK and I don't think anyone else should be.

I think it will be a much smaller centre of finance anchored only by tax haven lite status. Their lost jobs will increasingly move to stable EU locations where their investments are not at the mercy of the lunatic fringe of the Tory party and UKIP. They certainly wont be sticking in London to enjoy the weather.

I'm already aware of one major US bank where the London office are in wind-down. Everything is moving out to new locations around Europe, nothing is moving in to replace them. That's hundreds/thousands of jobs gone even before Brexit is crystallised in just one company.

Of course other countries will have their own agenda. But it's simply untrue to say that India or other countries don't want to conduct a good free trade deal with the UK or that there's "little mutual benefit" in doing so.

But do you really understand what that means, their own agenda? You think Argentina wont want to hold the UK's feet to the fire over the Falklands if only to make them grovel? Or that Putin wont want to kick the UK while they are down to play to a domestic audience eager to see examples of Russian dominance? How about Trumps trade chief who has already said that Brexit is an opportunity to take advantage of the UK? Let alone a Trump presidency which is hostile to free trade and globalisation just while the UK is desperate for trade deals.

Sure, they all want good free trade deals with the UK. Good for them. Not necessarily good for the UK. And you cant assume even, reasonable rational self interest will guide those nations either - Brexit is an example how countries can and do stupidly and irrationally damage their own interests.

Nody

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

This is interesting - got any more details? I wonder, under which terms existing deals now need to be modified? How will these modifications affect Ireland?

There are quotas and the like in deals which would/could be modified to remove the "UK" share of it; or certain sectors being protected/included which were driven by UK which may now be put back on the table/removed. In general though the deal would still apply until the new one is approved (inc. quotas) or cancelled.

130Kph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon,
Much thanks,
solodeogloria

































.....The reality is that the UK can and most probably will continue to be a successful country outside of the EU. The people have spoken, therefore I've decided to stop moaning that the vote didn't go my way and support the British government in getting the very best deal.

I don't believe the fear mongering that the sky is going to fall in, precisely because it is unfounded tosh.

That old familiar straw-man…..yawn. It’s been explained (vis-a-vis this forum) why it is a strawman- so often by now, maybe this man of straw is like tinsel of Noël - it’s just always there, sort of like tinsel on a Brexit car-crash, as it were!!

In a similar vein, May’s ‘Making a success out of Brexit’ spiel actually feels like Alice in Wonderland language to me– similar to saying “I am planning a head-on car crash & hope to make a success out of it”??? Er, what? :-

Looking at it optimistically (but of course), the car passengers might all survive. The hospital will hopefully be nice & comfortable. The medium to long term recuperation at home might have pleasant aspects to it- a sherry at noon every day for example.

But after all that (wrenching dislocation) is over, the long bread-and-butter grind has to restart, without many of the advantages that the car passengers had before the head on. It will probably be much tougher compared to people who didn’t suffer a head on crash.

My only question is - can you give two concrete (not vague generalised buccaneering optimism:--- two concrete) specifics of the positive economic benefits of brexit to the UK (specific meaning - ball park sense [given this is trying to forecast the future]).

Some relevant areas – maybe specific free trade deals with China / India / Brazil / Russia…(does realpolitik play into this or is it ignored)
There’s another division of countries below that….
Then there’s most of the other 200 countries/territories below that again.

Is it mainly free trade or is there some other as yet undefined hard-nosed elixir of positivity to Brexit (for the UK).

KingBrian2

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

I agree.

However it doesn't answer the question I asked. How are the changes you say the EU must make to existing trade deals, made before Brexit, going to affect Ireland?

Nate

Those existing trade deals are not looking good. The deal with North America principally USA is going downhill. Russia we have sanctions with. France pulled out of Iran a long while back. The Commission and Ireland a key free trade country in that room would be eager to ensure the EU has strong ties to those Nations i highlighted earlier. Look at Egypt around 80 million people access to Africa and the developing world. Mexico and Europe have a lot of potential for growth. We in Ireland can promote better standards in Mexico and Brazil. New deals that emphasis the importance of better working conditions. The Commissions role in presenting Europe to the world needs to get its game on.