Positivity - The Future
Discussion
I keep hearing that negotiations to withdraw will be very complex and time consuming. I don't understand this. Yes we'll have things to work out and ongoing negotiations for new deals afterwards but we only need a few basic principles to get started. We hold the upper hand in this.
Payments to the EU. We will no longer be a member of the EU so have no obligation to make any payments towards it. We may agree to make some payments in return for some concessions in future but we don't need to get these in place prior to leaving right now. If we've withdrawn all payments then reinstatement of some will be a bargaining chip in our hands.
EU Law. We no longer have anything making us follow EU laws and no-one else has any say in what laws we keep or change The UK government can start a process of working through the EU laws which we want to keep or reject. This is nothing to do with any other country and therefore not part of any exit negotiations.
Tariffs and free movement of goods. We start with the principle that we have the right to impose tariffs but with an agreement that we won't do so without prior discussion with the countries involved. Imposition of tariffs by other countries on our goods would be the starting point for discussions on restrictions placed on theirs. We don't need further negotiations on this prior to exit.
Free movement of workers. We start with the principle that we have the right to impose controls on our borders by use of visas, work permits etc but with an agreement not to do so without prior discussion with the countries involved. Discussions on this can take place after we have left.
Benefits. Only UK citizens will have a right to claim benefits in the UK.
I can't see that there is much more to discuss.Yes, we will have to make deals, but if we start with the status quo, but assert our rights to change this while agreeing to negotiate in future before making major changes then we can just get on with it.
Payments to the EU. We will no longer be a member of the EU so have no obligation to make any payments towards it. We may agree to make some payments in return for some concessions in future but we don't need to get these in place prior to leaving right now. If we've withdrawn all payments then reinstatement of some will be a bargaining chip in our hands.
EU Law. We no longer have anything making us follow EU laws and no-one else has any say in what laws we keep or change The UK government can start a process of working through the EU laws which we want to keep or reject. This is nothing to do with any other country and therefore not part of any exit negotiations.
Tariffs and free movement of goods. We start with the principle that we have the right to impose tariffs but with an agreement that we won't do so without prior discussion with the countries involved. Imposition of tariffs by other countries on our goods would be the starting point for discussions on restrictions placed on theirs. We don't need further negotiations on this prior to exit.
Free movement of workers. We start with the principle that we have the right to impose controls on our borders by use of visas, work permits etc but with an agreement not to do so without prior discussion with the countries involved. Discussions on this can take place after we have left.
Benefits. Only UK citizens will have a right to claim benefits in the UK.
I can't see that there is much more to discuss.Yes, we will have to make deals, but if we start with the status quo, but assert our rights to change this while agreeing to negotiate in future before making major changes then we can just get on with it.
lostkiwi said:
The EU will be in a very strong position for negotiation as Article 50 gives the advantage to the EU in as much as we need them more than they need us (value of our exports to them as a % of total exports vs value of their exports to us as a % of total exports).
Imports need to be considered too. Tariffs are generally reciprocal. RobinOakapple said:
The doom merchants are fond of warning us about the negative consequences of our actions as if these things (such as import tariffs) are going to happen automatically. They aren't. If they do happen it will be result of decisions and those decisions will be based on reasons.
So what are these reasons? Revenge? Spite?
The reasons will be twofold, firstly promoting the interests of the remaining members, and secondly discouraging others from following our lead, both valid motives imo. If the EU can use tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade to encourage UK based financial institutions and manufacturing companies to either relocate back into the EU, or to prioritise investment for their EU based sites then that means more jobs and more tax revenue for member states, and of course, less for us. Why wouldn't they do that?So what are these reasons? Revenge? Spite?
brrapp said:
I keep hearing that negotiations to withdraw will be very complex and time consuming. I don't understand this. Yes we'll have things to work out and ongoing negotiations for new deals afterwards but we only need a few basic principles to get started. We hold the upper hand in this.
Payments to the EU. We will no longer be a member of the EU so have no obligation to make any payments towards it. We may agree to make some payments in return for some concessions in future but we don't need to get these in place prior to leaving right now. If we've withdrawn all payments then reinstatement of some will be a bargaining chip in our hands.
EU Law. We no longer have anything making us follow EU laws and no-one else has any say in what laws we keep or change The UK government can start a process of working through the EU laws which we want to keep or reject. This is nothing to do with any other country and therefore not part of any exit negotiations.
Tariffs and free movement of goods. We start with the principle that we have the right to impose tariffs but with an agreement that we won't do so without prior discussion with the countries involved. Imposition of tariffs by other countries on our goods would be the starting point for discussions on restrictions placed on theirs. We don't need further negotiations on this prior to exit.
Free movement of workers. We start with the principle that we have the right to impose controls on our borders by use of visas, work permits etc but with an agreement not to do so without prior discussion with the countries involved. Discussions on this can take place after we have left.
Benefits. Only UK citizens will have a right to claim benefits in the UK.
I can't see that there is much more to discuss.Yes, we will have to make deals, but if we start with the status quo, but assert our rights to change this while agreeing to negotiate in future before making major changes then we can just get on with it.
You are talking about what happens 2 years after Article 50 is invoked.Payments to the EU. We will no longer be a member of the EU so have no obligation to make any payments towards it. We may agree to make some payments in return for some concessions in future but we don't need to get these in place prior to leaving right now. If we've withdrawn all payments then reinstatement of some will be a bargaining chip in our hands.
EU Law. We no longer have anything making us follow EU laws and no-one else has any say in what laws we keep or change The UK government can start a process of working through the EU laws which we want to keep or reject. This is nothing to do with any other country and therefore not part of any exit negotiations.
Tariffs and free movement of goods. We start with the principle that we have the right to impose tariffs but with an agreement that we won't do so without prior discussion with the countries involved. Imposition of tariffs by other countries on our goods would be the starting point for discussions on restrictions placed on theirs. We don't need further negotiations on this prior to exit.
Free movement of workers. We start with the principle that we have the right to impose controls on our borders by use of visas, work permits etc but with an agreement not to do so without prior discussion with the countries involved. Discussions on this can take place after we have left.
Benefits. Only UK citizens will have a right to claim benefits in the UK.
I can't see that there is much more to discuss.Yes, we will have to make deals, but if we start with the status quo, but assert our rights to change this while agreeing to negotiate in future before making major changes then we can just get on with it.
Much of that depends on the deal we negotiate with the EU.
If we negotiate a Norway style agreement (and for the life of me I can't see much if any benefit there compared to remaining) we will need to accept membership payments to the EU, open borders (maybe even Schengen), and implement some EU laws - all with having no voting rights in the EU.
If we negotiate a Swiss style agreement we will have less open access (particularly in the financial sector) and will have to accept open borders and a subset of EU laws.
If we negotiate a Canadian CETO style agreement (the Canadians have taken 7 years to get to where they are now) we would get more of what we want but can we do it in 2 years?
The CETO agreement is also not yet approved by the European Parliament so may not go ahead. It also excludes financial access.
The EU is unlikely to be particularly willing to make any other style of agreement (and the time scales would be too tight anyway) as they will not want to alienate Norway, Switzerland or Canada.
If we fail to negotiate any agreement with the EU in the two year period (and its in their interests not to agree anything) we become cast out with only WTO agreements in place. We don't have WTO standing as an independent nation at this time - only as an associate of the EU. That is something else we would need to negotiate.
For the rest of the world we would be bound by WTO rules (and first we need to negotiate our status there remember). It is complex. Very complex and very time consuming.
This is why the markets have reacted badly and why delaying pressing the Article 50 button is a good thing. Yes it creates uncertainty right now but it gives some time to get some of the negotiations underway.
This is why the markets reacted badly but what we saw is nothing compared to how they will react to Article 50 being invoked any time soon.
The best way forward in my eyes is controversial and fraught with difficulties for the political parties.
Article 50 requires an act of Parliament. If Parliament overwhelmingly reject it then it means we stay in the EU. For now.
The mandate to Brexit still exists but it gets the EU off our backs. It will bring back some stability to the markets. Most importantly it allows the UK to start informal talks to prepare the way to Brexit at a later date and resubmit the Act to leave the EU when ready. This allows a proper Brexit plan to be drafted and published, reassuring the markets and preserving the economy.
It also puts to bed the Scottish/Gibraltar/NI separatist ideas until a later date.
The issues are:
1. It requires parliament to act in a united manner.
2. It requires the electorate to keep the pitchforks in their sheds.
3. It requires some stability in the government
4. It requires a leader strong enough to negotiate it within Westminister and stand up and do it.
5. It requires MPs to think of the bigger picture instead of the next election. You can bet any MP will be very unpopular in the Brexit regions they represent if they vote against Brexit (as they would have to)..
For the record I am (and always have been pro-remain but IF we are going to Brexit it needs to be done with minimal damage.
lostkiwi said:
Countdown said:
s2art said:
Any impediment to free trade is potentially bad. But JLR, Nissan, Honda, Vauxhall etc would get a bigger share of the home market so it may compensate a little.
True, but if that's because they're being bought by people who would normally buy Audis. VWs etc, then they're having to settle for second best. Not ideal really, especially when it could have been avoided.This is the bit I find interesting - at the moment our trade deficit with the EU was £23.9 billion in 1st 3 months of 2016, and £10.8 billion with the ROW. SO if we do progress and leave the EU, aren't we then inviting the ROW to come and grab their share of the £23.9b (per 3 months) that the EU don't want??
Could we actually fulfill a lot this ourselves - more home grown food/fishing, manufacturing. I understand it costs more to produce, so the end result costs more - but isn't one of the arguments we're aiming for a higher wage economy. Is the above just too simplistic?
One car front - looking at stats;
The EU sold 13.713 million cars in FY 2015. 5 countries bought more than 1 million;
Germany 3.206 million
UK 2.633 million
France 1.917 million
Italy 1.574 million
Spain 1.034 million
These 5 countries buy 10.365 million of the 13.713 million cars. Which you would think makes them the core markets.
If Tariffs were imposed on the EU cars coming to the UK - could UK built ones fill the gap in the UK market and keep the businesses making money?
The Fiesta, Corsa, Focus & Golf are the top 4 selling cars - would they all potentially have tariffs?
If so the Qashqai (which is UK produced) would be sitting pretty to grab more market share
Mini is at Number 9 so could get more.
In Germany Nissan sold 69,000 units, In France 74,000 - In the UK 153,500.
In Germany Honda sold 21,000 units, in France they are not in the top 20 so <20,000. In the UK 53,000 units.
In Germany Jaguar sold 4,900 Units, 24,000 in the UK -
In the UK BMW sold 167,000 units - so would Jaguar see this as a massive opportunity?
I appreciate this is all very simplistic looking at numbers. Maybe the future is regarded as more critical from a strategic perspective for Nissan, how many cars are Poland likely to be buying in 2025?? But if not, could the UK market sustain the likes of Honda/Nissan on internal sales, while trying to do deals with other countries outside the EU?
The above isn't statements, more questions, I'm a remain voter, feeling a wee bit anxious, but also recognise if we are going it alone then we need to dive in head first, be smarter, better and more competitive in the world. Trading on our democratic values and the UK brand.
lostkiwi said:
You are talking about what happens 2 years after Article 50 is invoked.
Much of that depends on the deal we negotiate with the EU.
If we negotiate a Norway style agreement (and for the life of me I can't see much if any benefit there compared to remaining) we will need to accept membership payments to the EU, open borders (maybe even Schengen), and implement some EU laws - all with having no voting rights in the EU.
If we negotiate a Swiss style agreement we will have less open access (particularly in the financial sector) and will have to accept open borders and a subset of EU laws.
If we negotiate a Canadian CETO style agreement (the Canadians have taken 7 years to get to where they are now) we would get more of what we want but can we do it in 2 years?
The CETO agreement is also not yet approved by the European Parliament so may not go ahead. It also excludes financial access.
The EU is unlikely to be particularly willing to make any other style of agreement (and the time scales would be too tight anyway) as they will not want to alienate Norway, Switzerland or Canada.
If we fail to negotiate any agreement with the EU in the two year period (and its in their interests not to agree anything) we become cast out with only WTO agreements in place. We don't have WTO standing as an independent nation at this time - only as an associate of the EU. That is something else we would need to negotiate.
For the rest of the world we would be bound by WTO rules (and first we need to negotiate our status there remember). It is complex. Very complex and very time consuming.
This is why the markets have reacted badly and why delaying pressing the Article 50 button is a good thing. Yes it creates uncertainty right now but it gives some time to get some of the negotiations underway.
This is why the markets reacted badly but what we saw is nothing compared to how they will react to Article 50 being invoked any time soon.
The best way forward in my eyes is controversial and fraught with difficulties for the political parties.
Article 50 requires an act of Parliament. If Parliament overwhelmingly reject it then it means we stay in the EU. For now.
The mandate to Brexit still exists but it gets the EU off our backs. It will bring back some stability to the markets. Most importantly it allows the UK to start informal talks to prepare the way to Brexit at a later date and resubmit the Act to leave the EU when ready. This allows a proper Brexit plan to be drafted and published, reassuring the markets and preserving the economy.
It also puts to bed the Scottish/Gibraltar/NI separatist ideas until a later date.
The issues are:
1. It requires parliament to act in a united manner.
2. It requires the electorate to keep the pitchforks in their sheds.
3. It requires some stability in the government
4. It requires a leader strong enough to negotiate it within Westminister and stand up and do it.
5. It requires MPs to think of the bigger picture instead of the next election. You can bet any MP will be very unpopular in the Brexit regions they represent if they vote against Brexit (as they would have to)..
For the record I am (and always have been pro-remain but IF we are going to Brexit it needs to be done with minimal damage.
While I agree with your points on the need for stability etc but postponing Article 50 too far down the line and getting Parliament to reject it sounds like one is just kicking the can down the road and not to mention makes a bit of a mockery of the referendum...Much of that depends on the deal we negotiate with the EU.
If we negotiate a Norway style agreement (and for the life of me I can't see much if any benefit there compared to remaining) we will need to accept membership payments to the EU, open borders (maybe even Schengen), and implement some EU laws - all with having no voting rights in the EU.
If we negotiate a Swiss style agreement we will have less open access (particularly in the financial sector) and will have to accept open borders and a subset of EU laws.
If we negotiate a Canadian CETO style agreement (the Canadians have taken 7 years to get to where they are now) we would get more of what we want but can we do it in 2 years?
The CETO agreement is also not yet approved by the European Parliament so may not go ahead. It also excludes financial access.
The EU is unlikely to be particularly willing to make any other style of agreement (and the time scales would be too tight anyway) as they will not want to alienate Norway, Switzerland or Canada.
If we fail to negotiate any agreement with the EU in the two year period (and its in their interests not to agree anything) we become cast out with only WTO agreements in place. We don't have WTO standing as an independent nation at this time - only as an associate of the EU. That is something else we would need to negotiate.
For the rest of the world we would be bound by WTO rules (and first we need to negotiate our status there remember). It is complex. Very complex and very time consuming.
This is why the markets have reacted badly and why delaying pressing the Article 50 button is a good thing. Yes it creates uncertainty right now but it gives some time to get some of the negotiations underway.
This is why the markets reacted badly but what we saw is nothing compared to how they will react to Article 50 being invoked any time soon.
The best way forward in my eyes is controversial and fraught with difficulties for the political parties.
Article 50 requires an act of Parliament. If Parliament overwhelmingly reject it then it means we stay in the EU. For now.
The mandate to Brexit still exists but it gets the EU off our backs. It will bring back some stability to the markets. Most importantly it allows the UK to start informal talks to prepare the way to Brexit at a later date and resubmit the Act to leave the EU when ready. This allows a proper Brexit plan to be drafted and published, reassuring the markets and preserving the economy.
It also puts to bed the Scottish/Gibraltar/NI separatist ideas until a later date.
The issues are:
1. It requires parliament to act in a united manner.
2. It requires the electorate to keep the pitchforks in their sheds.
3. It requires some stability in the government
4. It requires a leader strong enough to negotiate it within Westminister and stand up and do it.
5. It requires MPs to think of the bigger picture instead of the next election. You can bet any MP will be very unpopular in the Brexit regions they represent if they vote against Brexit (as they would have to)..
For the record I am (and always have been pro-remain but IF we are going to Brexit it needs to be done with minimal damage.
However we can already see murmurings of your solution so I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility either..
fizz47 said:
lostkiwi said:
You are talking about what happens 2 years after Article 50 is invoked.
Much of that depends on the deal we negotiate with the EU.
If we negotiate a Norway style agreement (and for the life of me I can't see much if any benefit there compared to remaining) we will need to accept membership payments to the EU, open borders (maybe even Schengen), and implement some EU laws - all with having no voting rights in the EU.
If we negotiate a Swiss style agreement we will have less open access (particularly in the financial sector) and will have to accept open borders and a subset of EU laws.
If we negotiate a Canadian CETO style agreement (the Canadians have taken 7 years to get to where they are now) we would get more of what we want but can we do it in 2 years?
The CETO agreement is also not yet approved by the European Parliament so may not go ahead. It also excludes financial access.
The EU is unlikely to be particularly willing to make any other style of agreement (and the time scales would be too tight anyway) as they will not want to alienate Norway, Switzerland or Canada.
If we fail to negotiate any agreement with the EU in the two year period (and its in their interests not to agree anything) we become cast out with only WTO agreements in place. We don't have WTO standing as an independent nation at this time - only as an associate of the EU. That is something else we would need to negotiate.
For the rest of the world we would be bound by WTO rules (and first we need to negotiate our status there remember). It is complex. Very complex and very time consuming.
This is why the markets have reacted badly and why delaying pressing the Article 50 button is a good thing. Yes it creates uncertainty right now but it gives some time to get some of the negotiations underway.
This is why the markets reacted badly but what we saw is nothing compared to how they will react to Article 50 being invoked any time soon.
The best way forward in my eyes is controversial and fraught with difficulties for the political parties.
Article 50 requires an act of Parliament. If Parliament overwhelmingly reject it then it means we stay in the EU. For now.
The mandate to Brexit still exists but it gets the EU off our backs. It will bring back some stability to the markets. Most importantly it allows the UK to start informal talks to prepare the way to Brexit at a later date and resubmit the Act to leave the EU when ready. This allows a proper Brexit plan to be drafted and published, reassuring the markets and preserving the economy.
It also puts to bed the Scottish/Gibraltar/NI separatist ideas until a later date.
The issues are:
1. It requires parliament to act in a united manner.
2. It requires the electorate to keep the pitchforks in their sheds.
3. It requires some stability in the government
4. It requires a leader strong enough to negotiate it within Westminister and stand up and do it.
5. It requires MPs to think of the bigger picture instead of the next election. You can bet any MP will be very unpopular in the Brexit regions they represent if they vote against Brexit (as they would have to)..
For the record I am (and always have been pro-remain but IF we are going to Brexit it needs to be done with minimal damage.
While I agree with your points on the need for stability etc but postponing Article 50 too far down the line and getting Parliament to reject it sounds like one is just kicking the can down the road and not to mention makes a bit of a mockery of the referendum...Much of that depends on the deal we negotiate with the EU.
If we negotiate a Norway style agreement (and for the life of me I can't see much if any benefit there compared to remaining) we will need to accept membership payments to the EU, open borders (maybe even Schengen), and implement some EU laws - all with having no voting rights in the EU.
If we negotiate a Swiss style agreement we will have less open access (particularly in the financial sector) and will have to accept open borders and a subset of EU laws.
If we negotiate a Canadian CETO style agreement (the Canadians have taken 7 years to get to where they are now) we would get more of what we want but can we do it in 2 years?
The CETO agreement is also not yet approved by the European Parliament so may not go ahead. It also excludes financial access.
The EU is unlikely to be particularly willing to make any other style of agreement (and the time scales would be too tight anyway) as they will not want to alienate Norway, Switzerland or Canada.
If we fail to negotiate any agreement with the EU in the two year period (and its in their interests not to agree anything) we become cast out with only WTO agreements in place. We don't have WTO standing as an independent nation at this time - only as an associate of the EU. That is something else we would need to negotiate.
For the rest of the world we would be bound by WTO rules (and first we need to negotiate our status there remember). It is complex. Very complex and very time consuming.
This is why the markets have reacted badly and why delaying pressing the Article 50 button is a good thing. Yes it creates uncertainty right now but it gives some time to get some of the negotiations underway.
This is why the markets reacted badly but what we saw is nothing compared to how they will react to Article 50 being invoked any time soon.
The best way forward in my eyes is controversial and fraught with difficulties for the political parties.
Article 50 requires an act of Parliament. If Parliament overwhelmingly reject it then it means we stay in the EU. For now.
The mandate to Brexit still exists but it gets the EU off our backs. It will bring back some stability to the markets. Most importantly it allows the UK to start informal talks to prepare the way to Brexit at a later date and resubmit the Act to leave the EU when ready. This allows a proper Brexit plan to be drafted and published, reassuring the markets and preserving the economy.
It also puts to bed the Scottish/Gibraltar/NI separatist ideas until a later date.
The issues are:
1. It requires parliament to act in a united manner.
2. It requires the electorate to keep the pitchforks in their sheds.
3. It requires some stability in the government
4. It requires a leader strong enough to negotiate it within Westminister and stand up and do it.
5. It requires MPs to think of the bigger picture instead of the next election. You can bet any MP will be very unpopular in the Brexit regions they represent if they vote against Brexit (as they would have to)..
For the record I am (and always have been pro-remain but IF we are going to Brexit it needs to be done with minimal damage.
However we can already see murmurings of your solution so I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility either..
The biggest issue will be the pitchfork and hang-em high attitude the electorate will likely take.
One thing that seems to have cropped up in various threads is this belief by some that in some way the legitimacy and mandate for the executing of article 50 rests with CMD and CMD alone and that any subsequent PM replacing him would not or could not execute that action. I find this point of view somewhat strange in the the very Treaty (Lisbon) that enshrines Article 50 was signed on our behalf by Gordon Brown, a man who never had the peoples mandate as a Prime Minister and, indeed, never won a general election standing as such. Odd don't you think that some folk have such short memories and selective application of the rule of fair play and common sense?
vonuber said:
barryrs said:
You sure about that.
With the adoption of the European Water Framework Directive in 2000 authorities were no longer charged with a duty to prevent flooding. Instead, the emphasis shifted, to a primary obligation to achieve ‘good ecological status’ for our national rivers. This is defined as being as close as possible to ‘undisturbed natural conditions’. ‘Heavily modified waters’, which include rivers dredged or embanked to prevent flooding, cannot, by definition, ever satisfy the terms of the directive.
Yes, very sure.With the adoption of the European Water Framework Directive in 2000 authorities were no longer charged with a duty to prevent flooding. Instead, the emphasis shifted, to a primary obligation to achieve ‘good ecological status’ for our national rivers. This is defined as being as close as possible to ‘undisturbed natural conditions’. ‘Heavily modified waters’, which include rivers dredged or embanked to prevent flooding, cannot, by definition, ever satisfy the terms of the directive.
Living in Somerset and close to the Levels its widely reported that the EA's compliance with the EU's Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC was the major contributing factor to the severity of the flooding and the length of time for waters to recede.
My particular area of the country voted 61% in favor of leave and the above may well have been a strong reason for locals.
I agree with lostkiwi, we have no plan now any idea on how to start formulating one. It's irresponsible to try and Force through an exit now. We should take a period of time (needs to be set to prevent this going on forever) to come up with a coherent plan on how an exit would work andone what needs to be done/in place to cause as little damage as possible for us and the other member countries.
This could even be done with other countries who have a strong sceptic sentiment to see how if they were to leave it could work for them should they decide to leave.
This could even be done with other countries who have a strong sceptic sentiment to see how if they were to leave it could work for them should they decide to leave.
Camoradi said:
Countdown said:
The Germans are not going to stop us buying german cars.
Only an idiot would even think that was a possibility. I certainly didn't.I was referring to the possibility that if the EU put tariffs on UK goods, then WE could put tariffs on German car imports to the UK.
barryrs said:
Anything to substantiate that belief?
Living in Somerset and close to the Levels its widely reported that the EA's compliance with the EU's Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC was the major contributing factor to the severity of the flooding and the length of time for waters to recede.
My particular area of the country voted 61% in favor of leave and the above may well have been a strong reason for locals.
Yes I do and I covered it ad nauesum on the somerset flooding thread if you wish to go have a read, it's too complicated to summarise in a short paragraph.Living in Somerset and close to the Levels its widely reported that the EA's compliance with the EU's Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC was the major contributing factor to the severity of the flooding and the length of time for waters to recede.
My particular area of the country voted 61% in favor of leave and the above may well have been a strong reason for locals.
s2art said:
Countdown said:
s2art said:
Any impediment to free trade is potentially bad. But JLR, Nissan, Honda, Vauxhall etc would get a bigger share of the home market so it may compensate a little.
True, but if that's because they're being bought by people who would normally buy Audis. VWs etc, then they're having to settle for second best. Not ideal really, especially when it could have been avoided.RobinOakapple said:
The doom merchants are fond of warning us about the negative consequences of our actions as if these things (such as import tariffs) are going to happen automatically. They aren't. If they do happen it will be result of decisions and those decisions will be based on reasons.
So what are these reasons? Revenge? Spite?
From investopedia.com: So what are these reasons? Revenge? Spite?
Governments typically use one of the following justifications for implementing tariffs:
To protect domestic jobs. If consumers buy less-expensive foreign goods, workers who produce that good domestically might lose their jobs.
To protect infant industries. If a country wants to develop its own industry producing a particular good, it will use tariffs to make it more expensive for consumers to purchase the foreign version of that good. The hope is that they will buy the domestic version instead and help that industry grow.
To retaliate against a trading partner. If one country doesn’t play by the trade rules both countries previously agreed on, the country that feels jilted might impose tariffs on its partner’s goods as a punishment. The higher price caused by the tariff should cause purchases to fall.
To protect consumers. If a government thinks a foreign good might be harmful, it might implement a tariff to discourage consumers from buying it.
Read more: Tariff Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tariff.asp#ixz...
vonuber said:
barryrs said:
Anything to substantiate that belief?
Living in Somerset and close to the Levels its widely reported that the EA's compliance with the EU's Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC was the major contributing factor to the severity of the flooding and the length of time for waters to recede.
My particular area of the country voted 61% in favor of leave and the above may well have been a strong reason for locals.
Yes I do and I covered it ad nauesum on the somerset flooding thread if you wish to go have a read, it's too complicated to summarise in a short paragraph.Living in Somerset and close to the Levels its widely reported that the EA's compliance with the EU's Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC was the major contributing factor to the severity of the flooding and the length of time for waters to recede.
My particular area of the country voted 61% in favor of leave and the above may well have been a strong reason for locals.
brrapp said:
Tariffs and free movement of goods. We start with the principle that we have the right to impose tariffs but with an agreement that we won't do so without prior discussion with the countries involved. Imposition of tariffs by other countries on our goods would be the starting point for discussions on restrictions placed on theirs. We don't need further negotiations on this prior to exit.
When your negotiating counterpart says "That is a good starting principle. Now here [drops 200 page list of products and tariff rates on the table] are the tariffs we will be imposing on your goods coming into the EU on day one. Just sign on the last page to show you agree", what's your next move? Having spent a bit of time this morning thinking about tariffs I can see why it could take years to sort them out. Take cars for example.
The UK government would naturally wish to protect the interests of its domestic car industry, by which I mean those cars that are manufactured in the UK. The EU would have the same interest for cars made in the EU.
So, Jags v BMW. Say a particular model of Jag (X) competes with a particular model of BMW (Y). X costs £10k less to make and can be sold at £10k less. So the EU will want a tariff on Xs imported into the EU to protect the Ys. To which the UK will think "Hmm. Well if they are going to do that, we are not going to help them sell Ys in the UK, so we'll apply a tariff to Ys".
That's the simple version.
Now consider some wrinkles. The UK wants to promote green motoring. But the green BMW model P is much greener than the green Jag Q. So for that model the UK doesn't want to stick a tariff on P. But for unrelated reasons (say cost), the EU does want to slap a tariff on Q. What position do the UK negotiators take? That has to be quite carefully thought through.
Or this: the UK takes more in tax from petrol cars than diesel cars. So it wants to promote the purchase of petrol cars. But BMW's diesel cars are FAB! So it wants to tariff the crap out of them to keep them out of the country. The EU sticks retaliatory tariffs on some other model of Jag. Or some other model of another maker's car. Or some other product completely. Just because. And the tit for tat goes on.
Or this: engine size is the crucial factor. The UK Govt's company car rules mean it has a "sweet spot" for tax revenue around a particular engine size. In their respective model ranges the BMW engined car is much better reviewed. But the UK wants to protect the Jag's inferior competing model. Tariff time.
And so it goes on, and on. It doesn't take much imagination to see that the level of detail to which these talks can descend could be incredible. And for each point, the respective sides have to work out a position, having regard to the product concerned and any knock on effects, and then have a secondary position, and so on.
Not a job I would relish.
The issue isn't trade tariffs as they would have to be insane to try and impose those with such a trade balance. The issue is over us wanting to protect our services sector, and the requirements they might try and put on us to achieve that.
I think we may end up on WTO rules until we negotiate a separate FTA.
And for those saying that joining the WTO is complex, we are the 6th largest economy in the world. It is there to promote trade. It isn't hard, and all we want is to follow MFN rates, just as China and the US do with the EU every day.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff