Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Except that it isn't. It's also about paying as little to the EU post-Brexit as possible for posterity's sake which is important given that the Chuka Umunna's amendment to the Brexit date bull to secure this extra funding has just been defeated:

https://twitter.com/labourwhips/status/829400745623617537

And then there's the fact that you never go deeper than this? What's the sweet spot between conceding ground to Brussels and trade freedom in your opinion? Finally, you never go into detail as to how EU membership has restricted trade to the rest of the world, a statement which sharply juxtaposes the fact that over half of Britain's trade is with non-EU members. How much room is there to liberalise trade, exactly? Surely with the election of Emmanuel Macron, this would be an ideal time for the British government to push the EU in a new global trade position? But then, this would do nothing for the Paleosceptics who want out at all costs.

Good morning!

I've not really got a lot to say on Chuka Umuna's amendment apart from to say that the EU Withdrawal Bill isn't the right place for it. The bill is intended to give a legal framework for the process of withdrawing, not the exact step by step implementation. There will be other pieces of legislation for this.

EDIT: Just realised this amendment was for the Article 50 legislation in February, in which case it would have been an even worse place for it than the EU Withdrawal Bill!

On liberalising trade. I don't know why you are having difficulty understanding my position. My point isn't that the UK can't trade with the wider world. Of course it can. The EU prevents the UK signing free trade agreements for itself that could liberalise the terms on which that trade is conducted. Liberalising the terms of this trade would give British businesses better access into the markets of other countries, creating new opportunities for trade, leading to new jobs and new trade in Britain.

My point isn't that the EU prevents trade outside the EU full stop, it is that it prevents Britain being able to liberalise that trade with better terms.

As for your point about "giving as little as possible" to the EU. In a sense you're right. The UK isn't interested in giving more money to the EU than it needs to. As a taxpayer I'm happy this is the Government's approach. There is also a line where the money argument becomes a bad deal. I've got a figure that I'm broadly speaking happy with that is a lot more liberal than some other Brexiteers but I agree with the principle that the UK shouldn't spend any more than it has to.

It is better for the UK to be able to steer its own direction on trade. Different countries have different interests, whereas if the UK is able to move forward with trade deals in its own interests without being delayed or hampered by having to consider 27 other countries I think that's the better outcome.

As for how much room is there to liberalise trade. Removing tariff and non-tariff barriers on goods and services with the United States and China in particular would be hugely beneficial to the economy. That's before we consider other partners. Your claim that there isn't much room for liberalisation of trade terms with other countries when we are trading with them on WTO most favourable nation terms doesn't quite make sense. In fact any liberalisation beyond WTO terms even if small would increase opportunities for outputs to these markets. Opportunities for a deal between the US and the UK in respect to financial services in particular would be good for both the City and Wall Street.

I don't think Emmanuel Macron is the saviour of the EU. The EU would need substantial reform if I was going to advocate rejoining it. The UK is leaving the EU, and there's no room for a u-turn on that matter, so the argument for pushing Macron in X, Y or Z direction is too late. The European Communities Act has been withdrawn in a vote in parliament. Therefore the current conversation is about how to Brexit, not about if the UK should. That has been settled.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Water John

We've waited long enough for the UK to spell out their mystery solution on the border question. Varadkar lays it on the line:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/17/irish-pm-brexit-backing-politicians-did-not-think-things-through

I really think, we have listened to enough bul****t.

Nody

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Exactly. The Tories' floundering and flailing about as they sink is just going to harden attitudes within the EU collectively and individually. Only yesterday, there was yet another article in the Torygraph blaming Ireland for impeding progress. Little Englander hubris is showing its true colours.

Well to be fair Leo did do the following:

Leo Varadkar dismissed Ms May’s claim that negotiations on the future land border are “almost there” as “wishful thinking”, at a breakfast meeting.

Instead, he told the UK prime minister that she must set out detailed proposals that can form part of the conclusions of the crunch December EU summit.

Without that reassurance, Ireland would block any attempt to move the negotiations onto future trade and a transitional period to cushion Brexit – the Holy Grail for the UK.

swampgas

Also from the Guardian, a report that the Dutch are looking at preparations to deal with a chaotic no-deal Brexit:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/16/brexit-netherlands-told-to-prepare-for-a-no-deal-chaos-scenario

Unlike the other EU-27 countries we have the additional headache of the threats to the GFA. Ireland has a difficult line to tread between pushing for no hard border with NI (and holding off on preparing border posts), and preparing for chaotic Brexit where we suddenly find ourselves with an EU border with the 3rd country that is the UK (i.e. building border infrastructure in advance). It may be that holding the UK's feet to the fire by threatening to block any trade deal is the only way the get the UK to take the NI issue seriously.

However I don't see any solution emerging any time soon - I think a hard chaotic Brexit is the most likely scenario, and one (unfortunately) for which we should be making serious contingency plans.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've not really got a lot to say on Chuka Umuna's amendment apart from to say that the EU Withdrawal Bill isn't the right place for it. The bill is intended to give a legal framework for the process of withdrawing, not the exact step by step implementation. There will be other pieces of legislation for this.

I think it's the perfect place given that the pledge was on the side of a big, red bus driving two senior government figures around.

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point isn't that the EU prevents trade outside the EU full stop, it is that it prevents Britain being able to liberalise that trade with better terms.

And again you've dodged the question. Repeating this ad nauseam isn't helping.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think it's the perfect place given that the pledge was on the side of a big, red bus driving two senior government figures around.



And again you've dodged the question. Repeating this ad nauseam isn't helping.

Good morning!

You asked me about how the EU restricts trade to the rest of the world. I answered you. It doesn't permit the UK to pursue trade deals by itself. I also pointed out the scope for how trade could be expanded from WTO most favourable nation terms. Removing tariff and non-tariff barriers on goods and services through a negotiated free trade agreement. I also mentioned financial services and the US.

If I misunderstood your question please restate what you asked more clearly.

On the purpose of the withdrawal bill - I disagree with you and I explained why.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

On liberalising trade. I don't know why you are having difficulty understanding my position. My point isn't that the UK can't trade with the wider world. Of course it can. The EU prevents the UK signing free trade agreements for itself that could liberalise the terms on which that trade is conducted. Liberalising the terms of this trade would give British businesses better access into the markets of other countries, creating new opportunities for trade, leading to new jobs and new trade in Britain.

My point isn't that the EU prevents trade outside the EU full stop, it is that it prevents Britain being able to liberalise that trade with better terms.

My guess is you, or anyone, will not be able to point to a trade deal that the UK currently has as being part of the EU that negatively impacts the UK compared to a deal that they have negotiated themselves. I would be interested to know how the UK can have better trade terms than they currently have as part of the EU.

Saying that the UK can get better trade deals if they go about it alone doesn't mean it will happen. How many people must tell the UK that it loses out on a strong negotiation position as part of the EU by going at it alone? But yet people persist to think that better terms will be gotten by doing their own trade deals.

swampgas

solodeogloria wrote: »

You asked me about how the EU restricts trade to the rest of the world. I answered you. It doesn't permit the UK to pursue trade deals by itself. I also pointed out the scope for how trade could be expanded from WTO most favourable nation terms. Removing tariff and non-tariff barriers on goods and services through a negotiated free trade agreement. I also mentioned financial services and the US.

The only way I can see for the UK to get deals that it cannot get as part of the EU involves a race to the bottom in terms of regulations and safety standards.

Only by deviating from (and dropping) EU regulation and standards can the UK hope to get significant deals with other countries. That will make it impossible to have any kind of frictionless border with Ireland or the rest of the EU.

And I think it's very bad for the people of the UK as a whole to have their health and safety thrown under a bus just to get a few trade deals that in all likelihood won't make up from what is lost in trade with the EU.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

My guess is you, or anyone, will not be able to point to a trade deal that the UK currently has as being part of the EU that negatively impacts the UK compared to a deal that they have negotiated themselves. I would be interested to know how the UK can have better trade terms than they currently have as part of the EU.

Saying that the UK can get better trade deals if they go about it alone doesn't mean it will happen. How many people must tell the UK that it loses out on a strong negotiation position as part of the EU by going at it alone? But yet people persist to think that better terms will be gotten by doing their own trade deals.

Good afternoon!

I've not said this. Please read my posts carefully.

No current deal is an issue. The point is that by taking control of trade policy the UK will be able to sign new trade deals to liberalise trade with trade partners which are not under an EU FTA.

That was very clear.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've not said this. Please read my posts carefully.

No current deal is an issue. The point is that by taking control of trade policy the UK will be able to sign new trade deals to liberalise trade with trade partners which are not under an EU FTA.

That was very clear.

So let me get this straight. The UK always had control to have EU immigrants leave the country if they didn't contribute to the state in 6 months, i.e. control of borders. The UK always had control of their laws and the parliament was always sovereign.

And now the UK won't get better trade terms than they currently enjoy. They may get worse trade terms but the control to get a worse deal is what has people up in arms.

It seems the longer the malarkey goes on for the worse the reasons for leaving the EU becomes.

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!
On liberalising trade. I don't know why you are having difficulty understanding my position. My point isn't that the UK can't trade with the wider world. Of course it can. The EU prevents the UK signing free trade agreements for itself that could liberalise the terms on which that trade is conducted. Liberalising the terms of this trade would give British businesses better access into the markets of other countries, creating new opportunities for trade, leading to new jobs and new trade in Britain.

More substantiated:

A. On iliberalising trade. I don't know why you are having difficulty understanding my position. My point isn't that the UK can't trade freely with the EU. Of course it can, it's in the single market. The EU prevents the UK from erecting trade and non-trade barriers with the rest of the EU that could iliberalise the terms on which that trade is conducted. Illiberalising the terms of this trade would give British businesses worse access into the markets of other EU countries, killing new opportunities for trade, leading to massive job and trade losses in Britain. Ofcourse trading with the wider world will be greatly illiberalised under WTO rules with no Gatt, FTAs, mulitlateral or unilateral deals but dont worry because


B. We are now in a position to liberalise trade with the rest of the world for the sole reason that action A. has made us the most illiberal trading country on the planet (no exaggeration). From this position of historical weakness we are in no position to regain any of the lost trade by negotiation and our fantasy of a free trade world remains that. Our weakness and inevitable green economics means that globalised trade recedes in current form. There would have been opportunities for globalised services but our once mighty services sector has been decimated by Brexit.

But....we had fun rationalising the irrational Brexit.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

So let me get this straight. The UK always had control to have EU immigrants leave the country if they didn't contribute to the state in 6 months, i.e. control of borders. The UK always had control of their laws and the parliament was always sovereign.

And now the UK won't get better trade terms than they currently enjoy. They may get worse trade terms but the control to get a worse deal is what has people up in arms.

It seems the longer the malarkey goes on for the worse the reasons for leaving the EU becomes.

Good afternoon!

I've already replied on this thread saying why those controls on migration are insufficient.

I've explained to you that I'm both interested in maintaining as much trade with the EU as possible whilst liberalising trade elsewhere. I've explained why at length on this thread. I've explained why this would lead to more trade and more jobs.

I'm really happy to say we disagree. But there's no point repeating points I've already responded to. There's also no point saying I've not explained by position either.

It gives the impression that this thread is an echo chamber.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

You asked me about how the EU restricts trade to the rest of the world. I answered you. It doesn't permit the UK to pursue trade deals by itself. I also pointed out the scope for how trade could be expanded from WTO most favourable nation terms. Removing tariff and non-tariff barriers on goods and services through a negotiated free trade agreement. I also mentioned financial services and the US.

Because most British trade is already with the world outside the EU. How much more is going to develop, exactly? The lie that the whole world is queueing up for trade deals has already been exposed.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've already replied on this thread saying why those controls on migration are insufficient.

I've explained to you that I'm both interested in maintaining as much trade with the EU as possible whilst liberalising trade elsewhere. I've explained why at length on this thread. I've explained why this would lead to more trade and more jobs.

I'm really happy to say we disagree. But there's no point repeating points I've already responded to. There's also no point saying I've not explained by position either.

It gives the impression that this thread is an echo chamber.

Are you taking double-talk and hypocrisy lessons from the same place as David Davis?

solodeogloria wrote: »

No current deal is an issue. The point is that by taking control of trade policy the UK will be able to sign new trade deals to liberalise trade with trade partners which are not under an EU FTA.

The US, China and India, at a guess?

You should broaden your news and analysis -reading circle (friendly suggestion to improve your -apparent- grasp of geopolitics, and help put a bit more flesh on the bones of your argument should you -finally- be so minded).

See here -EDIT- and here.

Vronsky

swampgas wrote: »

Also from the Guardian, a report that the Dutch are looking at preparations to deal with a chaotic no-deal Brexit:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/16/brexit-netherlands-told-to-prepare-for-a-no-deal-chaos-scenario

Unlike the other EU-27 countries we have the additional headache of the threats to the GFA. Ireland has a difficult line to tread between pushing for no hard border with NI (and holding off on preparing border posts), and preparing for chaotic Brexit where we suddenly find ourselves with an EU border with the 3rd country that is the UK (i.e. building border infrastructure in advance). It may be that holding the UK's feet to the fire by threatening to block any trade deal is the only way the get the UK to take the NI issue seriously.

However I don't see any solution emerging any time soon - I think a hard chaotic Brexit is the most likely scenario, and one (unfortunately) for which we should be making serious contingency plans.

The deal has to be completed by the end of the summer, in order for it to be ratified by every Parliament that needs to. There will be a 6 month period for every country to prepare for the outcome of the negotiation.

Not a lot of time to get infrastructure in place granted, but it won't be a case of talks failing and the UK ends out in the morning either.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've already replied on this thread saying why those controls on migration are insufficient.

I've explained to you that I'm both interested in maintaining as much trade with the EU as possible whilst liberalising trade elsewhere. I've explained why at length on this thread. I've explained why this would lead to more trade and more jobs.

I'm really happy to say we disagree. But there's no point repeating points I've already responded to. There's also no point saying I've not explained by position either.

It gives the impression that this thread is an echo chamber.

I would question how the UK, and you, would know that those immigration restrictions are insufficient when they have never had any interest in applying them, but my guess is the real answer is closer to I don't care about control of immigration, I just want to leave the EU.

On trade your posts seem to indicate that you think the UK is losing out on trade as they don't have control over the trade negotiations.

My point isn't that the EU prevents trade outside the EU full stop, it is that it prevents Britain being able to liberalise that trade with better terms.

So we know the UK won't have better terms with their current trade partners and may just in fact have worse terms. So the question is will those "better" trade terms that the UK will be able to negotiate with the countries that the EU do not have a agreement at the moment make up for the "lost" trade by losing the 50 odd deals they currently enjoy.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Because most British trade is already with the world outside the EU. How much more is going to develop, exactly? The lie that the whole world is queueing up for trade deals has already been exposed.

Good morning!

You're missing the point again. If the UK exports a lot to the wider world today on WTO terms - liberalising trade and dropping tariffs will give better opportunities to trade more. There's plenty of scope to trade more with big markets like the US or China.

The question isn't how much more scope is there? In two markets of 1.3bn lots! More than a market of 430 odd million as important as that is. That's before we consider rapidly expanding developing markets.

My question to you is why can't you see that the opportunities are huge?

Also - why do you think that just because the UK exports lots outside of the EU today that it can't export more with better terms?

The assumptions that you hold might be the reason why you don't understand. I don't understand why you've got such a low view of the UK's abilities as a country.

The trade department are currently in working groups with 21 countries all interested in trade with Britain.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I've not said this. Please read my posts carefully.

No current deal is an issue. The point is that by taking control of trade policy the UK will be able to sign new trade deals to liberalise trade with trade partners which are not under an EU FTA.

That was very clear.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You know the UK will be the junior party in trade deals with the US and China (the latter has very few trade deals at all by the way)?

You make out like the UK gets to call the shots in new trade deals but don't mention anything about what the UK gives in return.

You have already conceded that for this to work the UK needs to be able to export its services but FTAs rarely cover these. You expect the world's countries to start incorporating services into FTAs for the UK's benefit?

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

You're missing the point again. If the UK exports a lot to the wider world today on WTO terms - liberalising trade and dropping tariffs will give better opportunities to trade more. There's plenty of scope to trade more with big markets like the US or China.

The question isn't how much more scope is there? In two markets of 1.3bn lots! More than a market of 430 odd million as important as that is. That's before we consider rapidly expanding developing markets.

My question to you is why can't you see that the opportunities are huge?

Also - why do you think that just because the UK exports lots outside of the EU today that it can't export more with better terms?

The trade department are currently in working groups with 21 countries all interested in trade with Britain.

You're just repeating yourself again. Have you any sort of source to back this up at all if you're so certain?

What you don't seem to understand is leverage in trade negotiations. The US will likely insist on privileged access to the NHS that Leave voters wanted to increase funding for, not dismantle. This is why it's better to stay in the EU rather than leave, there is more clout with the prize of access to the single market to entice prospective partners.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The assumptions that you hold might be the reason why you don't understand. I don't understand why you've got such a low view of the UK's abilities as a country.

This is just pathetic to be honest. I said nothing of the sort.

ancapailldorcha

An analysis from Ian James Parsley about David Davis' attitude to the single market:

https://twitter.com/ianjamesparsley/status/931259341965025281

Full thread:

This evening in Germany, David Davis has demonstrated a frankly humiliating misunderstanding of even the basics of the EU...
Firstly, even if somehow Angela Merkel were scared that the German economy could be crippled by, er, not being able to export freely to a smaller country like the UK, she cannot intervene to offer the UK a special deal. No one can.
Let us repeat: the EU is the Single Market and the Single Market is the EU. Let us also repeat: the Single Market is a market of rules. This is the fundamental point David Davis has still failed to grasp.
For that reason, participation in the Single Market by any non-EU State is determined by which rules that State is willing to adopt. And that the end of it. (Norway adopts nearly all of them, for example; Moldova just a few.)
David Davis therefore still hasn’t grasped that this negotiation is not “We give a bit, you give a bit”.
It is essentially “Here are the rules of the Single Market; tell us which ones you no longer wish to apply and that will determine your level of participation in it.”
This really should be obvious. How otherwise could a 27/28-member bloc function if it did not have rules? And those rules cannot be amended other than with the support of the whole bloc.
This is all to leave quite aside that David Davis vastly overstates the UK’s economic importance. Germany sells many multiples more cars in China and the US, for example. That is a basic matter of fact.
UK really should have worked out by now, more than halfway between Referendum Day and Brexit Day, that this whole “They’ll bend to our will” stuff is a myth. It can’t happen - and wouldn’t, even if it could.
And for any UK Minister to go anywhere else and tell the locals not to put “politics before prosperity” is, right now, to set a new world record in gross hypocrisy. For that is precisely and embarrassingly what the UK alone is doing with #Brexit.
David Davis’ call for co-operation in the interests of mutual prosperity was met with an obvious first question from a German journalist...
“If that is what you want, why are you leaving?”

This is why I'm pessimistic. There isn't a shred of evidence whatsoever that this is going well. We have a government in thrall to extreme Brexiteers who's sole motivation for leaving the EU is a hatred of it, nothing more than that. There's plenty of capacious talk about opportunities but nobody seems to have any sign whatsoever that this is proceeding in any sort of capacity, even an informal one.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're just repeating yourself again. Have you any sort of source to back this up at all if you're so certain?

What you don't seem to understand is leverage in trade negotiations. The US will likely insist on privileged access to the NHS that Leave voters wanted to increase funding for, not dismantle. This is why it's better to stay in the EU rather than leave, there is more clout with the prize of access to the single market to entice prospective partners.

This is just pathetic to be honest. I said nothing of the sort.

Good afternoon!

I've discussed this with you before.

Why are you so afraid of America? The NHS already has private contracts and I don't see why these shouldn't be opened to American operators. Bidding will happen and the health service will decide who is the best bidder. I'd personally be happy with Anglo-American cooperation improving. I don't consider them any more negatively than the EU.

Other much smaller countries have FTA's with China - Switzerland and Iceland. Smaller countries have FTA's with the United States. There is zero reason why the UK won't be able to improve access if it wants to. Why do you think the UK can't? Again, seems like a low view without justification.

You say there's more clout in the single market and you've claimed that I've not backed up my claims despite providing figures in several points in this thread. If membership of the single market and customs union blocks improved trading terms with the rest of the world, I'd confidently say better off out with a reduced FTA. The US and China together are markets of 1.3 billion. The EU is 430mn - this is important, but not at the expense of expansion elsewhere.

I'm not the only one who needs to answer the questions put to me. You need to be willing to do this too.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

jobbridge4life

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is why I'm pessimistic. There isn't a shred of evidence whatsoever that this is going well. We have a government in thrall to extreme Brexiteers who's sole motivation for leaving the EU is a hatred of it, nothing more than that. There's plenty of capacious talk about opportunities but nobody seems to have any sign whatsoever that this is proceeding in any sort of capacity, even an informal one.

Quite so, simplu put there is an enormous, insurmountable gap between what Brexiters want and reality.

The British position has always really just been elaboration of Boris's 'we can have our cake and eat it too'. Only they are going to discover that not only can't they eat the cake, it doesn't even belong to them.

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!



Other much smaller countries have FTA's with China - Switzerland and Iceland. Smaller countries have FTA's with the United States. There is zero reason why the UK won't be able to improve access if it wants to. Why do you think the UK can't? Again, seems like a low view without justification.

You have to remember that the UK want a free trade agreement with the EU first and foremost. Let's assume they get one and it includes farming. This now means a free trade agreements on farming with the US is impossible as their standards don't meet ours

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Other much smaller countries have FTA's with China - Switzerland and Iceland. Smaller countries have FTA's with the United States. There is zero reason why the UK won't be able to improve access if it wants to. Why do you think the UK can't? Again, seems like a low view without justification.

Iceland's FTA with China allows it to sell excess fish. That's it. China definitely got the better end of that deal.

solodeogloria wrote: »

You say there's more clout in the single market and you've claimed that I've not backed up my claims despite providing figures in several points in this thread. If membership of the single market and customs union blocks improved trading terms with the rest of the world, I'd confidently say better off out with a reduced FTA. The US and China together are markets of 1.3 billion. The EU is 430mn - this is important, but not at the expense of expansion elsewhere.

You've provided figures but not sources for them. The last figure I saw for EU trade was 44%. Your figures above suggest a much lower percentage. Can you provide a source please?

Anyway, several prominent Leave campaigners were all for single market membership:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

Well to be fair Leo did do the following:

It's chicken and egg. Britain thinks Ireland is blocking trade agreements and Ireland thinks Britain is disregarding border considerations.

However, the fact remains that it is Britain which has decided to leave. It's not Ireland's responsibility to facilitate that leaving to the detriment of Ireland's interests.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

ancapailldorcha: if I hadn't been through all of these points before with reference to the ONS figures and Full Fact on the sizes of markets you might have some justification to say I have no references for this. I'm sure you can add the US and Chinese populations together yourself using a calculator.

On the other hand I've asked you questions and I don't get answers. This isn't a one way conversation.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

On the other hand I've asked you questions and I don't get answers. This isn't a one way conversation.

I have answered your questions. I pointed out the problem with your Iceland example for one thing.

You asked me why I was afraid of America. This is a disingenuous strawman that I have no interest in indulging.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I have answered your questions. I pointed out the problem with your Iceland example for one thing.

You asked me why I was afraid of America. This is a disingenuous strawman that I have no interest in indulging.

Good afternoon!

It seemed a reasonable question given what you said about the NHS. Why are you any more worried about American business involvement in the NHS than European and British business involvement in the NHS? Contracts already exist. Do you object to American involvement in public private partnerships generally?

There are other questions in the posts before that you've not answered. Again, it's reasonable that if I am going to respond to your questions that you should respond to mine.

Edit: On the 44% question. You've misunderstood my point. I was speaking of the markets in terms of population. At present China and the US make up £100bn of trade, and the EU makes up £230bn. My point is that given the size of the markets by population (430mn EU, 1.3bn US & China) there's definitely scope to expand the £100bn. You can find these figures in the ONS statistics for trade which I've already posted before on this thread.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I've discussed this with you before.

Why are you so afraid of America? The NHS already has private contracts and I don't see why these shouldn't be opened to American operators. Bidding will happen and the health service will decide who is the best bidder. I'd personally be happy with Anglo-American cooperation improving. I don't consider them any more negatively than the EU.

Other much smaller countries have FTA's with China - Switzerland and Iceland. Smaller countries have FTA's with the United States. There is zero reason why the UK won't be able to improve access if it wants to. Why do you think the UK can't? Again, seems like a low view without justification.

You say there's more clout in the single market and you've claimed that I've not backed up my claims despite providing figures in several points in this thread. If membership of the single market and customs union blocks improved trading terms with the rest of the world, I'd confidently say better off out with a reduced FTA. The US and China together are markets of 1.3 billion. The EU is 430mn - this is important, but not at the expense of expansion elsewhere.

I'm not the only one who needs to answer the questions put to me. You need to be willing to do this too.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The EU is also just 25 miles away to the UK's right and 0 miles away to the left. There's a reason trade between neighbouring countries is always higher than trade between countries separated by thousands of miles and several time zones!

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

You're missing the point again. If the UK exports a lot to the wider world today on WTO terms -

Youre missing the point:

The UK does barely any trade under WTO terms:

This is show they trade

Agreements in place

Partly in place

Being updated

Negotiations started/in progress

It is possible to trade under pure WTO rules but it is massively cumbersome with red tape and ambiguity. But perhaps you can enlighten us as to who the UK will magic these problems away?

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

The EU is also just 25 miles away to the UK's right and 0 miles away to the left. There's a reason trade between neighbouring countries is always higher than trade between countries separated by thousands of miles and several time zones!

Good afternoon!

We've also been through this before. I partially agree with you and partially disagree with you. Large economies are also important:

Office of National Statistics wrote:

Trade relationships are usually stronger between neighbouring countries, and with countries with large economies. China and the US are large economies and are important UK trading partners even accounting for their distance from us.

However, distance is important. The value of the UK’s trading relationship with Ireland is higher than the value of UK trade with Italy or Spain. Ireland is the UK’s neighbour, even though the total size of its economy is much smaller than Italy’s or Spain’s.

Link here.

This is again why I support a free trade arrangement with the EU and an arrangement that will permit more liberal trade with China and America amongst other countries. Britain will remain on the edge of the European Union after Brexit.

Edit: demfad - that link shows that there is no agreement with China or America for example. That's £100bn+ worth of trade. Perhaps we have different views of what "barely any" means.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

We've also been through this before. I partially agree with you and partially disagree with you. Large economies are also important:


Link here.

This is again why I support a free trade arrangement with the EU and an arrangement that will permit more liberal trade with China and America amongst other countries. Britain will remain on the edge of the European Union after Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

This external trade with large and small countries is under EU rules and EU FTAs, Multilateral agreements, association agreements, Gatt etc.

You will need to show us projections of UK trade under pure WTO rules to prove your point. Your point is that the UK will do well while not under EU rules. Prove it.

Also there the current Doha Development Agenda decides liberalisation of the WTO.

Can you please show me how the UK would be able to decide thsi unilaterally with other WTO countries?

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

It seemed a reasonable question given what you said about the NHS. Why are you any more worried about American business involvement in the NHS than European and British business involvement in the NHS? Contracts already exist. Do you object to American involvement in public private partnerships generally?

No, it wasn't. You asked why I was afraid of America. You never used the word "business".

I object to American involvement on the NHS as it would be partly undemocratic given that the strain on it led to Vote Leave manipulating voters with that big red bus. Also, the US spends more healthcare per capita than any other nation by quite a margin and it's far from world leading.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

It seemed a reasonable question given what you said about the NHS. Why are you any more worried about American business involvement in the NHS than European and British business involvement in the NHS? Contracts already exist. Do you object to American involvement in public private partnerships generally?

There are other questions in the posts before that you've not answered. Again, it's reasonable that if I am going to respond to your questions that you should respond to mine.

Edit: On the 44% question. You've misunderstood my point. I was speaking of the markets in terms of population. At present China and the US make up £100bn of trade, and the EU makes up £230bn. My point is that given the size of the markets by population (430mn EU, 1.3bn US & China) there's definitely scope to expand the £100bn. You can find these figures in the ONS statistics for trade which I've already posted before on this thread.

I would think that people in the UK, and the rest of Europe where health care is much more of a public service, would be scared of letting US companies that go for profit above anything else near the NHS. The US spends the most on healthcare than other OECD countries. Now you have to wonder why this is and if allowing companies that compete in such a system would be good for your own health system. I mean they only spend the most money on their healthcare while at the same time having less doctors than the average.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries Link in 2012

In the United States:

There are fewer physicians per person than in most other OECD countries. In 2010, for instance, the U.S. had 2.4 practicing physicians per 1,000 people — well below below the OECD average of 3.1.

The number of hospital beds in the U.S. was 2.6 per 1,000 population in 2009, lower than the OECD average of 3.4 beds.

Life expectancy at birth increased by almost nine years between 1960 and 2010, but that’s less than the increase of over 15 years in Japan and over 11 years on average in OECD countries. The average American now lives 78.7 years in 2010, more than one year below the average of 79.8 years.

Do you still think it is a good idea to allow American companies near the NHS?

Also, you have waved away the fact that the UK trades closer to 50% of its trade with the EU instead of the reported figure of 44% if you ignore gold trades. Those only add value numbers to the UK GDP but if the UK only keeps the gold in the country until the sale to another bank/country and only receives a handling fee for the transaction instead of the total value that appears that the trade is worth. Once this is taken into account then trade with the EU is much more important for the UK and I understand why you want to ignore it. You are now changing the argument to potential size of population. Nice little change of argument there.

An Ciarraioch

Key stats from Brian Lucey - NI's exports amounted to £9 billion last year, with 36% of those going to the Republic. By contrast, 1.7% of our exports went acrosd the Border:

https://theconversation.com/northern-irelands-economy-has-a-lot-more-to-lose-from-a-hard-brexit-than-the-republics-87388

blanch152

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Key stats from Brian Lucey - NI's exports amounted to £9 billion last year, with 36% of those going to the Republic. By contrast, 1.7% of our exports went acrosd the Border:

https://theconversation.com/northern-irelands-economy-has-a-lot-more-to-lose-from-a-hard-brexit-than-the-republics-87388

I don't think anyone disagrees with the notion that Northern Ireland will suffer more from Brexit than the South.

Professor Moriarty

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Key stats from Brian Lucey - NI's exports amounted to £9 billion last year, with 36% of those going to the Republic. By contrast, 1.7% of our exports went acrosd the Border:

https://theconversation.com/northern-irelands-economy-has-a-lot-more-to-lose-from-a-hard-brexit-than-the-republics-87388

Wow! That's some disparity!

Sam Russell

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think anyone disagrees with the notion that Northern Ireland will suffer more from Brexit than the South.

Especially when single farm payments will have to be 'earned' according to Dr Fox.

Farm subsidies will have to be earned rather than just handed out in future, the Environment Secretary Michael Gove has said in a speech.
Farmers will only get payouts if they agree to protect the environment and enhance rural life, he will say.
The move is part of what he calls his vision for a "green Brexit".

How much of the current £10 billion subvention from the UK Gov to NI will still be paid, and how much of the EU subvention will be rolled into it and therefore not paid?

blanch152

Enzokk wrote: »

So we know the UK won't have better terms with their current trade partners and may just in fact have worse terms. So the question is will those "better" trade terms that the UK will be able to negotiate with the countries that the EU do not have a agreement at the moment make up for the "lost" trade by losing the 50 odd deals they currently enjoy.

This is the key flaw in solo's logic. Look at this post

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

You're missing the point again. If the UK exports a lot to the wider world today on WTO terms - liberalising trade and dropping tariffs will give better opportunities to trade more. There's plenty of scope to trade more with big markets like the US or China.

The question isn't how much more scope is there? In two markets of 1.3bn lots! More than a market of 430 odd million as important as that is. That's before we consider rapidly expanding developing markets.

My question to you is why can't you see that the opportunities are huge?

Also - why do you think that just because the UK exports lots outside of the EU today that it can't export more with better terms?

The assumptions that you hold might be the reason why you don't understand. I don't understand why you've got such a low view of the UK's abilities as a country.

The trade department are currently in working groups with 21 countries all interested in trade with Britain.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

He just assumes that the UK can get better terms outside the EU. It just defies logic.

At the moment any EU country has more tariff-free trade arrangements than any other country in the world. The mechanism that somehow by leaving the EU (where they have the best trade terms in the world) that the UK will quickly have better trade terms just doesn't make sense.

Two questions.

(1) If it was so easy, then why don't Norway or Switzerland or Turkey have better trade arrangements now than the EU? Russia anyone?

Answer: They don't so it isn't

(2) If it is so easy, why doesn't everyone leave the EU, go their own way, and hey presto, greater prosperity?

Answer: Because there are huge trade and prosperity benefits in belonging to the EU which the UK is prepared to just throw away.

blanch152

Sam Russell wrote: »

How much of the current £10 billion subvention from the UK Gov to NI will still be paid, and how much of the EU subvention will be rolled into it and therefore not paid?

As long as the DUP are supporting the government, the EU subvention will be paid.

An Ciarraioch

Meanwhile, one of the BBC's leading reporters doesn't seem to understand that our parties are broadly united on this issue:

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/931549422688919559

Sam Russell

blanch152 wrote: »

As long as the DUP are supporting the government, the EU subvention will be paid.

So until the next General Election then.

Cannot see the next one being a repeat of this last one.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

blanch152 wrote: »

This is the key flaw in solo's logic. Look at this post

He just assumes that the UK can get better terms outside the EU. It just defies logic.

At the moment any EU country has more tariff-free trade arrangements than any other country in the world. The mechanism that somehow by leaving the EU (where they have the best trade terms in the world) that the UK will quickly have better trade terms just doesn't make sense.

Two questions.

(1) If it was so easy, then why don't Norway or Switzerland or Turkey have better trade arrangements now than the EU? Russia anyone?

Answer: They don't so it isn't

(2) If it is so easy, why doesn't everyone leave the EU, go their own way, and hey presto, greater prosperity?

Answer: Because there are huge trade and prosperity benefits in belonging to the EU which the UK is prepared to just throw away.

If you had read my post properly - then I think you'd be entitled to show holes in my logic.

If there is no free trade agreement with China and America in the EU, and if the UK can get one that improves on WTO most favourable nation terms then yes, the UK can get more favourable trading arrangements with both countries than the EU because the EU doesn't seem willing to negotiate with either country. TTIP failed because of European sensibilities. The same is true for other countries the EU doesn't have a free trade agreement with.

Switzerland has a better trading arrangement with China than other European countries.

This idea that the UK can't sign free trade agreements that liberalise trade outside of the EU is just wrong. It can and it will. There are plenty of countries with good free trade agreements with other countries. A lot of them are substantially smaller than the UK. Canada and Australia are great examples.

The only thing that defies logic is this strange idea that the UK won't be able to expand trade in the same way that other countries outside of the EU have.

Enzokk wrote: »

I would think that people in the UK, and the rest of Europe where health care is much more of a public service, would be scared of letting US companies that go for profit above anything else near the NHS. The US spends the most on healthcare than other OECD countries. Now you have to wonder why this is and if allowing companies that compete in such a system would be good for your own health system. I mean they only spend the most money on their healthcare while at the same time having less doctors than the average.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries Link in 2012



Do you still think it is a good idea to allow American companies near the NHS?

Also, you have waved away the fact that the UK trades closer to 50% of its trade with the EU instead of the reported figure of 44% if you ignore gold trades. Those only add value numbers to the UK GDP but if the UK only keeps the gold in the country until the sale to another bank/country and only receives a handling fee for the transaction instead of the total value that appears that the trade is worth. Once this is taken into account then trade with the EU is much more important for the UK and I understand why you want to ignore it. You are now changing the argument to potential size of population. Nice little change of argument there.

You're comparing apples with oranges. You're comparing being able to bid for contracts that already exist in the NHS to the American health system. They aren't the same.

Contracts should go to the best bidder. If bids come from America, and other countries including the EU, all should be able to go forward and all should be able to be considered on merit for the contract.

I find this American boogeyman stuff to be nonsense. Allowing access to a market isn't the same thing as always being accepted for contracts.

I'm not afraid of America, a very like minded country to the UK in many respects. I welcome a more open trade policy and more opportunity to do business. I see competition as a good thing. Protectionism is generally bad. There's no more reason to be distrustful of America than there is to be distrustful of the European Union.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint

Protectionsim is bad.


Irony.

steddyeddy

Well as many posters predicted Ireland signals it will block trade talks unless a satisfactory border plan is guaranteed in writing. From the Guardian, Independent and Financial Times. This needs to happen. A hard border (or any border) would be extremely detrimental for the Irish economy. I think a sea border is the way to go. Unionists will be annoyed but in fairness they tend to be annoyed at everything Irish anyway so who cares.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

If there is no free trade agreement with China and America in the EU, and if the UK can get one that improves on WTO most favourable nation terms then yes, the UK can get more favourable trading arrangements with both countries than the EU because the EU doesn't seem willing to negotiate with either country. TTIP failed because of European sensibilities. The same is true for other countries the EU doesn't have a free trade agreement with.

Okay, first up, there is one big condition there. IF the UK can get a trade deal that improves on WTO for them, then yes, the UK wins.

It is by no means certain that such a FTA will occur. One of the key reasons for this is the definition of a good free trade agreement will tend to be different for each side of the negotiating table. So the first thing you have to ask - and I am asking you solo because you are the person who is selling this idea - is what constitutes a good trade deal for the UK with either China or the US?

Ultimately, both China and the US - which are big countries - will be strongly negotiating in favour of their exporting industries, and this is why we've already spent ages talking about chlorine washed chicken for example - and they will not be interested in what is in the UK's best interest. The mere existence of any FTA cannot be considered a victory here. You have to set out what constitutes enough of an improvement in trade terms between the UK and China and the UK and the US such that walking out of the EU will be worth it.

Define that trade deal in detail because there is one big problem here: both China and the US have fairly diversified industry sectors and the UK does not have much to sell either of them. A trade deal that results in the UK importing more stuff will not directly result in more manufacturing or service jobs except maybe in retail. And you cannot build an economy on retail alone.

So, I don't want to hear "the EU doesn't have a deal" or "Britain will be free to". I want to hear what a good trade deal involves. What Britain will be selling and how its economy will be growing and I want to know why you think you're going to get it since it is conditional again on the kindness of strangers, ie, the US and China and quite frankly I wouldn't be betting a country's GDP on it.

Your mileage may vary.

Calina

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Meanwhile, one of the BBC's leading reporters doesn't seem to understand that our parties are broadly united on this issue:

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/931549422688919559

I don't think she's alone and I think that's part of political culture. The nature of FPTP in the UK means they rarely return minority governments or have to negotiate coalitions. So they assume that minority governments or coalitions are intrinsically weak. You can see this with respect to comments around Germany at the moment which is negotiating a grand coalition.

What troubles me about Ireland in this respect is we speak English and so does most of our mass media. Normally, you know, it shouldn't be impossible for anyone with a modicum of English language skills to understand that just because Varadkar is head of a minority government, it does not directly imply he is in a very weak position. Arguably, he is more secure in his job than May is for the simple reason that his party isn't actually two extreme parties in and of itself. No one sane could call the Tory party united at the moment or even close to being a dependable party.

We've done the minority government before in this country, and to be honest, they tend to happen because parties make decisions in the interests either of the economic health of the country or the stability of government.

And to be frank, I doubt they'll find Micheal Martin to be any more malleable than Varadkar.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

You're comparing apples with oranges. You're comparing being able to bid for contracts that already exist in the NHS to the American health system. They aren't the same.

Contracts should go to the best bidder. If bids come from America, and other countries including the EU, all should be able to go forward and all should be able to be considered on merit for the contract.

I find this American boogeyman stuff to be nonsense. Allowing access to a market isn't the same thing as always being accepted for contracts.

I'm not afraid of America, a very like minded country to the UK in many respects. I welcome a more open trade policy and more opportunity to do business. I see competition as a good thing. Protectionism is generally bad. There's no more reason to be distrustful of America than there is to be distrustful of the European Union.

You see no reason to fear the US health system? You really need to see what people are fighting about in the US when it comes to their healthcare system. When you have the prospect of losing your home because you cannot pay medical bills for a disease you have no control over, I think that is a system you need to run away from as fast as possible.

Now granted those companies that will bid for the contracts will only deliver a service, but they will be used to an business environment where the end goal is to make money. For me the service that will be provided will not be patient focused but it will be to make money. Peoples health should not be an opportunity to make money. Then again that's just me.

Calina

Brexit is not going to totally be the cross that the NHS dies on. Tory party policy is the issue here and would have been regardless of whether the UK voted in favour of Brexit or not.

flatty

Calina wrote: »

Brexit is not going to totally be the cross that the NHS dies on. Tory party policy is the issue here and would have been regardless of whether the UK voted in favour of Brexit or not.

Off topic, but competition isn't the cross the NHS will die on either. Trying to be all things to all men free at the point of delivery is the cross it will die on if it's not careful.