Brexit discussion thread IV

Jaggo

Imreoir2 wrote: »

On tarrifs, the UK can drop its tarrifs to zero and this should see prices in the shops go down for the average Brit (at least on those items that manage to clear the ports). The big problem is that droping tarrifs to zero will hugely damage their domestic manafacturers who produce for the domestic market. At the same time, other countries will not drop their tarrifs, and where the UK currently has tarrif free trade, the tarrifs will go up on day one. This will crucify domestic manafacturers that produce for export.

Just adding to this, you hear a lot about the UK being able to import cheap food thus lowering food prices but this isn't certain at all.

While wholesale food prices are cheaper, import regulations and admin increases the cost. The UKs highly streamlined food importation system produces very low prices. I checked a comparison website and for an average basket of food items it had uk prices at $7.16, Australia at $8.94 and the US at $10.45.

Evidently minimizing of waste in importation delays, just in time delivery and security of supply out weights the benefit of cheap agricultural commodities.

Maybe, over time, the UK can overcome these barriers and lower the cost but until then the UK will face higher food prices.

flutered

Dymo wrote: »

To



https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1005715/brexit-news-latest-UK-no-deal-WTO-Iain-Duncan-Smith

the comments underneath that article are startling

Imreoir2

Lemming wrote: »

Not to forget that if the UK unilaterally drops it's obligatory tariff controls, there is absolutely zero incentive for any other country in the world to do a trade deal with them; why should they? They get to charge the UK an arm & a leg for access to their markets all the while enjoying unfettered, unrestricted access in return at zero cost.

This is very true, though it should be pointed out that it would not be unfettered acces in the same way that the internal EU trading relationships work. It seems that the non-tarrif barriers to trade can have as big an impact on costs as the actual tarrifs.

Nody

flutered wrote: »

the comments underneath that article are startling

Sorry but I'm sitting here laughing reading them; here's a few of my favourites:

I prefer the WTO deal as that will place us in the driving seat and it will be for Brussels to chase us for a Free Trade deal, to save EU businesses and workers jobs.

×
Delete Post
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
There's no such thing as a free trade deal between the uk and eu..
As we have to pay the eu £ billions and follow all the restrictions on uk world trade thats cost the uk a £ trillion since we joined..so its Not free.
wto trade with the uk and eu means the eu pays the uk to trade with us.
a removal of restrictive regulation is estimated to be worth hundreds of £ billions to the uk...its madness not to take our country back under our own control.

×
Delete Post
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
We already have WTO deals with most of the world, all we have got to do take our WTO powers back that were stolen from us by the EU

To be fair a few people did call out the actual facts but those posts with without exception ignored by the Brexiteer gang cheering and thumbing up posts.

captainspeed

captainspeed wrote: »

I thought they can't just become WTO members by default. For starters don't they need to sort out quotas with the EU, and last time I checked, aren't the quotas that they agreed with the EU in certain areas for food being disputed by countries like Australia and New Zealand?

That is an issue that affects both the UK and the EU equally.

Say, for example, 90% of New Zealand land currently goes to the UK, the deal proposed jointly by the EU/UK is that 90% of the quota goes to the UK, 10% to the EU. New Zealand are saying that this is unfair, as currently, if the UK doesn’t take its allocation then the balance is sold in Europe, with the proposed deal, that isn’t possible, so they want the equivalent of 90% to the UK 30% to the EU.

The biggest general complaint seems to be that the UK leaving changes everything and it isn’t up to one side of a deal to change things. It could see the EU in hot water at the WTO as well as the UK.

Leroy42

They can't, in all seriousness, be thinking of a no deal. WTO and zero tariffs and zero regulations.

It beyond insane

Nody

Aegir wrote: »

The biggest general complaint seems to be that the UK leaving changes everything and it isn’t up to one side of a deal to change things. It could see the EU in hot water at the WTO as well as the UK.

Except EU when submitting the plan also stated they were willing to negotiate (i.e. increase) their quota were as UK's approach was this is a set quota and we expect you to accept it. And this ties into the next problem; EU has existing trade deals to fall back on while the dispute gets resolved where as UK...

VinLieger

Nody wrote: »

EU has existing trade deals to fall back on while the dispute gets resolved where as UK...

Exactly, also the incentives they will need to giveaway in the beginning for the first few deals will put them on the backfoot with virtually all but the smallest countries

Leroy42

But they will sell it as great deals. The new future. It will be a few years before the effects take hold.

Initially thet might even see some benefits. Lower prices due to lower standards. It will take a while for the car plants to close for example.

At that stage they can simply blame the evil EU for everything.

J Mysterio

It's amazing to me to think that Parliament is in recess right now. As the country is literally on the precipice.

For fuchs sake... is anything being done?

J Mysterio

Brexit: First 'no-deal' technical notices to be published on Thursday, says Downing Street

More than 80 documents giving advice to citizens and businesses due to come out before end of September.

These have to be a joke. Technical notices to warn of the dangers of no deal. How about you use that energy to actually make a deal? We know no deal is an absolute disaster.

"The first of the explanatory documents are expected from the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) within days and are designed to inform citizens and businesses how to cope with a no-deal scenario."

But... okay... Maybe these studies could have been released two years ago to - y'know - inform the public what it was they were voting for?

That said, there's something very odd about these 'technical notices'. They are also being quite heavily publicised. Are they perhaps part of a UK bluffing game? To show they are serious about the seppuku?

The incompetence is beyond words really.

Imreoir2

J Mysterio wrote: »

It's amazing to me to think that Parliament is in recess right now. As the country is literally on the precipice.

For fuchs sake... is anything being done?

There is an unfortunate assumption that the centre of this drama is Westminster. Westminster in reality is little more than a sideshow. The deal, if we ever get one, will be put together in Brussels. Negiotiations have been taking place in Brussels over the last few days between the EU taskforce and the British delegation.

There is little more than bluster and posturing going on in Westminster, the fact that they are in recess is probably more a benefit than a hinderance to the negiotiations right now.

Jim2007

J Mysterio wrote: »

These have to be a joke. Technical notices to warn of the dangers of no deal. How about you use that energy to actually make a deal? We know no deal is an absolute disaster.

It is too late for a deal at this stage. There is insufficient time to get the approval of 38 regional and national parliaments plus the EU parliament. And in the meantime the mind set in the EU has changed, we've learned to think the unthinkable - the UK is leaving and now the objective is to get the best deal possible for those who remain. When you open up the decision to the 38, regional and personal preferences will play a big part, so it is not at all sure what will be accepted.

At this stage a bog standard Canadian deal is probably the only thing that could fly.

Jim2007

captainspeed wrote: »

I thought they can't just become WTO members by default. For starters don't they need to sort out quotas with the EU, and last time I checked, aren't the quotas that they agreed with the EU in certain areas for food being disputed by countries like Australia and New Zealand?

Well strictly speaking the UK is a member, but the problem is that as you have pointed out, there is a lot of opposition to their proposals for going forward.

The other think is that the UK seems to have a very big misunderstand how how trade deals work between WTO member states. It is not possible to get great deals from all the others members even if they were will to disadvantage themselves to do so. The reality is you can get one great deal and that comes as part of a customs union or similar structure... and they are just about to pass up the great deal they had...

Peregrinus

Jim2007 wrote: »

It is too late for a deal at this stage. There is insufficient time to get the approval of 38 regional and national parliaments plus the EU parliament . . .

It's not too late for a deal. The timetable was always to agree a deal by September/October, which leaves 5/6 months for ratification, which is sufficient. If that deadline is missed there's talk of an emergency Council in November to sign off on a deal, which would leave 4 months for ratification, which is skin-of-the-teeth but doable, given a following wind.

If we get to December without agreeing a deal, now . . .

Christy42

Should there be a new Lisbon treaty? The withdrawal clause was never expected to be used and so not completely thought through.

Maybe the withdrawal agreement could be written in to it. So if a member leaves they agree to follow all EU rules and make payments until a 3rd party agreement is drawn up or some such.

LeinsterDub

Christy42 wrote: »

Should there be a new Lisbon treaty? The withdrawal clause was never expected to be used and so not completely thought through.

Maybe the withdrawal agreement could be written in to it. So if a member leaves they agree to follow all EU rules and make payments until a 3rd party agreement is drawn up or some such.

That would be leaving without leaving and would give the EU far to much leverage in a negotiation. Basically agree to whatever we say or your stuck here forever

Peregrinus

Art. 50 was designed (a) to give member states a clear right to leave the Union, but (b) to make doing so fairly disadvantageous, so as not to create incentives to leave.

Basically, it's working quite well. The only issue that seems to be not adequately addressed is whether a member state which has given notice can unilaterally withdraw that notice before it expires. That could perhaps be clarified (and the clarification would be "no, this requires the consent of the EU").

Bit cynical

J Mysterio wrote: »

But... okay... Maybe these studies could have been released two years ago to - y'know - inform the public what it was they were voting for?

I think it is important to remember that Cameron, when he called the referendum, wanted the motion to leave to be defeated. What better way to achieve this than to create as much fear, uncertainty and doubt in the Leave option? The less detail, therefore, the better; the more unatractive the Leave option becomes.

Calling the referedum was a high risk strategy but, had it worked out as planned, Cameron would have been a hero of EU supporters, not just in the UK but throughout Europe. He would have put leaving the EU to bed, just like he did for Scottish independence, for the next twenty or thirty years.

The Scottish Indyref was a similar case. What the SNP wanted was not full indpendence but maximum devolution ("devo max"). Cameron upped the stakes by insisting that it would be full independence and did not discuss in advance of the referendum the likely relationship Scotland would have with rUK thus creating as much uncertainty as possible.

breatheme

That's one of the reasons Remain lost, in my opinion. They could've focuse more on what the UK has done to shape Europe. How it has led and has been a voice in the EU for the last few decades. Rather than "we can't go it alone".

Doesn't help that Remain was very associated not only with the status quo, but also with Cameron's government.

Something more like this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_atSsfbExvs is what the Remain campaign should've been like.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think it is important to remember that Cameron, when he called the referendum, wanted the motion to leave to be defeated. What better way to achieve this than to create as much fear, uncertainty and doubt in the Leave option? The less detail, therefore, the better; the more unatractive the Leave option becomes.

Calling the referedum was a high risk strategy but, had it worked out as planned, Cameron would have been a hero of EU supporters, not just in the UK but throughout Europe. He would have put leaving the EU to bed, just like he did for Scottish independence, for the next twenty or thirty years.

The Scottish Indyref was a similar case. What the SNP wanted was not full indpendence but maximum devolution ("devo max"). Cameron upped the stakes by insisting that it would be full independence and did not discuss in advance of the referendum the likely relationship Scotland would have with rUK thus creating as much uncertainty as possible.

The Scottish indyref was tight enough in the end, even taking into account the potential loss of EU membership. That should have given him pause.

Putting such a technical and complex decision as leaving the EU to a referendum was a massively risky gamble. No business would undertake such a huge gamble without feasibility studies piled high. And that's what Cameron should have done to silence the eurosceptics. Let them come up with a workable plan first. Then put that to the people.

We'd still be waiting for that workable plan.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think it is important to remember that Cameron, when he called the referendum, wanted the motion to leave to be defeated. What better way to achieve this than to create as much fear, uncertainty and doubt in the Leave option? The less detail, therefore, the better; the more unatractive the Leave option becomes.

Cameron wasn't seeking a mandate to Leave, though; the Leave campaign was.

And this gave them a dilemma. The more specific, realistic and detailed the Leave proposal was, the stronger the mandate they might hope to get. On the other hand, the more specific, realistic and detailed the Leave proposal was, the more people would find in it that was doubtful, difficult or objectionable. The Leave campaign could maximise their vote by being as vague and aspirational as possible about what Leaving actually entailed, but the downside was that this could only ever give a mandate for a vague, aspirational Brexit. Which is why we can now say that there is a mandate for leaving the EU, but no madate to leave the EEA, to leave the Customs Union, to have a hard border in Ireland, to crash out without an Art. 50 agreement. The Leave campaign sought a mandate for a Brexit which, explicitly, did not require all or indeed any of these things, and that's the only mandate they have.

With respect to the Scottish Indyref, it's true that Cameron wouldn's say what the position of an independent Scotland would be. But the Scottish government recognised this issue and published a detailed White Paper on governance and policy in an independent Scotland, plus a draft Constitution for an independent Scotland. They couldn't, of course, guarantee that a vote for independence would deliver all this, but (had they won the referendum) they could certainly say that they had a clear mandate to seek it.

Leave choose the opposite strategy and fought the referendum campaign in a way which, on the one hand, maximised their chances of winning the referendum but, on the other hand, minimised the mandate that winning would give them. With results that we can now see.

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

Putting such a technical and complex decision as leaving the EU to a referendum was a massively risky gamble. No business would undertake such a huge gamble without feasibility studies piled high. And that's what Cameron should have done to silence the eurosceptics. Let them come up with a workable plan first. Then put that to the people.

The problem with that is it gives people something concrete to work with. They can say, yes, there will be some economic price to pay for leaving the EU but, on balance, I think it is worth it. A jump into the unknown is another matter. Much scarier. Much more offputting.

If you were calling the referendum in order that Leave would win on the other hand then, yes, you would probably flesh out more the conseqences of a win. Even here, though, it would be difficult as the outcome would be the result of negotiation and not just the policy of the Government.

Leroy42

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Muh butiful democracy! Who elected these unelected representatives? /s

They were put in their roles by the elected representatives that were democratically elected.

You think that each person working for the state should be elected?

And would you prefer elected, but clueless (ie Davies) rather than hired, skilled and trained?

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

Art. 50 was designed (a) to give member states a clear right to leave the Union, but (b) to make doing so fairly disadvantageous, so as not to create incentives to leave.

Basically, it's working quite well. The only issue that seems to be not adequately addressed is whether a member state which has given notice can unilaterally withdraw that notice before it expires. That could perhaps be clarified (and the clarification would be "no, this requires the consent of the EU").

The EU won't build a get out clause into A50. To do so would open the door to countries waving it as a negotiating tool. Brexit does indeed mean Brexit and if the UK wanted to change its mind it would have to crawl through many many hoops, some of which have yet to be invented.

Even if UK politics could be stood on their head to create a change of mind, I suspect the price the Commission and the 27 would ask would be too high for them to swallow.

The Commission, the 27 and business across Europe (and beyond) has already invested heavily in preparing for life after Brexit. Nobody is interested in being messed around any further.

Jim2007

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not too late for a deal. The timetable was always to agree a deal by September/October, which leaves 5/6 months for ratification, which is sufficient.

Look the has not even got to a point where they have agreement on what they actually want. Far to late at this stage for anything but a bog standard Canada style agreement and even that is going to be hard for them to agree to.

flatty

Nody wrote: »

flutered wrote: »

the comments underneath that article are startling

Sorry but I'm sitting here laughing reading them; here's a few of my favourites:

I prefer the WTO deal as that will place us in the driving seat and it will be for Brussels to chase us for a Free Trade deal, to save EU businesses and workers jobs.

×
Delete Post
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
There's no such thing as a free trade deal between the uk and eu..
As we have to pay the eu £ billions and follow all the restrictions on uk world trade thats cost the uk a £ trillion since we joined..so its Not free.
wto trade with the uk and eu means the eu pays the uk to trade with us.
a removal of restrictive regulation is estimated to be worth hundreds of £ billions to the uk...its madness not to take our country back under our own control.

×
Delete Post
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
We already have WTO deals with most of the world, all we have got to do take our WTO powers back that were stolen from us by the EU

To be fair a few people did call out the actual facts but those posts with without exception ignored by the Brexiteer gang cheering and thumbing up posts.

It's the comment section of the express ffs. A paper that will soon be back to espousing that lady Di was murdered by madeline mcann. Looking for anything other than bigotry and idiocy from anyone invested enough to use the comments page is a complete waste of time. Why bother?

Peregrinus

Jim2007 wrote: »

Look the has not even got to a point where they have agreement on what they actually want. Far to late at this stage for anything but a bog standard Canada style agreement and even that is going to be hard for them to agree to.

I think you're confusing two things here. What was to be agreed by Sept/Oct was Withdrawal Agreement. That doesn't deal with future trading relationship; just with Withdrawal and its immediate consequences.

Withdrawal Agreement is to provide for transition period, during which future trading relationship should be addressed, with the idea (in theory) that this could be done in time for deal to be put in place at end of transition. Canada-style, Norway-style etc all refer to the kind of future trading deal the EU and the UK might have. This was never going to be locked in by Sep/Oct of this year.

Leroy42

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I think you missed the sarcasm tag

Is that what the "/s" means? I thought is was simply a typo!

J Mysterio

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think it is important to remember that Cameron, when he called the referendum, wanted the motion to leave to be defeated. What better way to achieve this than to create as much fear, uncertainty and doubt in the Leave option? The less detail, therefore, the better; the more unatractive the Leave option becomes.

People have limited imaginations and many have no understanding of the interconnected nature of the UK/EU. The reality is worse than many can/ could comprehend.

To not produce literature for the referendum or create a referendum commission was unforgivable.