Tory Leadership Election
Poll: Tory Leadership Election
Total Members Polled: 433
Discussion
jjlynn27 said:
It's not impossible at all, but it seems that consensus is that it would take LONG time.
But, I'll agree with you, it would be good to hear expert or even very informed opinion.
:thumbsup: Thanks, I hadn't seen the quote on cut and pasting. Seems clear to him. Although it would be an obvious starting point otherwise Article 50 isn't going to be invoked until 2025.But, I'll agree with you, it would be good to hear expert or even very informed opinion.
The following might help cut through some of this morass:
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/edd13153-...
Evidence to the Parliamentary Treasury Committee, from this Wednesday, by;
Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, Director, European Centre for International Political Economy
Shanker Singham, Director of Economic Policy and Prosperity Studies, Legatum Institute
Richard North, Author
It's nearly two hours of evidence and pretty dense stuff but vital to understand what's going on. While some may be familiar with Richard North, the evidence from Makiyama and Singham is more relevant as they have been involved in trade negotiations.
In short:
WTO - UK as a founding signatory to GATT and a member via the EU will probably be able to settle a WTO deal. However.
The key to understanding the process is
1) the terms of accession to WTO are principally to be agreed as part of the article 50 negotiations (as the UK sits as part of the EU currently) and then presented as a dual proposal by the EU and UK together. The UK cannot be a single agent here.
2) That process is 'highly likely' to be successful.
3) However WTO will *not* provide the basis for an ongoing trading relationship with the EU - the complexity and integration of the respective economies requires something significantly more detailed as WTO is largely concerned with tariff control for example and has little to say on NTBs, neverminding its lack of historical coverage for things like Services agreements that will be key to the UK's future.
It really is worth spending the time watching this if you can spare a couple of hours.
It really is a wake up call for everyone, certainly in terms of the complexity of what we are attempting to do, as well as making clear that we are in very uncharted territory here: there isn't (contrary to much of the UK debate on both sides) a set of model choices (WTO, EEA+ EEA-, EFTA etc). The absolute principle that especially Makiyama and Singham were highlighting, is that all will be up for negotiation: what we have now will not be possible (as we will no longer be part of the EU). What comes down the line will be hard hard work, and will probably be unique in, and of itself.
Possibly Singham's analysis was most apposite: the negotiation when it takes place, will need the UK to have as much to bargain with as possible (discussions etc with US, Canada, China, India etc). The other key point is that this will take time, but once negotiations are underway, it will largely be done on principles of net benefit: i.e. the talks will continue as long as actors in the process (UK and German industry for example) want to derive some kind of beneficial outcome. Political economy questions (such as punishing the UK etc) will largely recede as the process continues, but are most likely to be the first and foremost challenges.
As a Leaver I don't doubt my vote was correctly cast, but this evidence really does take a pin to b
ks spouted especially by the likes of Lawson and others, who casually referred to WTO rules, during the campaign, as some kind of mythic get out of jail card. They won't be, and the UK ha s hard road ahead of it.
Arguably it is a lapse of the grossest kind that Parliament held this session 3 weeks after the actual vote...
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/edd13153-...
Evidence to the Parliamentary Treasury Committee, from this Wednesday, by;
Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, Director, European Centre for International Political Economy
Shanker Singham, Director of Economic Policy and Prosperity Studies, Legatum Institute
Richard North, Author
It's nearly two hours of evidence and pretty dense stuff but vital to understand what's going on. While some may be familiar with Richard North, the evidence from Makiyama and Singham is more relevant as they have been involved in trade negotiations.
In short:
WTO - UK as a founding signatory to GATT and a member via the EU will probably be able to settle a WTO deal. However.
The key to understanding the process is
1) the terms of accession to WTO are principally to be agreed as part of the article 50 negotiations (as the UK sits as part of the EU currently) and then presented as a dual proposal by the EU and UK together. The UK cannot be a single agent here.
2) That process is 'highly likely' to be successful.
3) However WTO will *not* provide the basis for an ongoing trading relationship with the EU - the complexity and integration of the respective economies requires something significantly more detailed as WTO is largely concerned with tariff control for example and has little to say on NTBs, neverminding its lack of historical coverage for things like Services agreements that will be key to the UK's future.
It really is worth spending the time watching this if you can spare a couple of hours.
It really is a wake up call for everyone, certainly in terms of the complexity of what we are attempting to do, as well as making clear that we are in very uncharted territory here: there isn't (contrary to much of the UK debate on both sides) a set of model choices (WTO, EEA+ EEA-, EFTA etc). The absolute principle that especially Makiyama and Singham were highlighting, is that all will be up for negotiation: what we have now will not be possible (as we will no longer be part of the EU). What comes down the line will be hard hard work, and will probably be unique in, and of itself.
Possibly Singham's analysis was most apposite: the negotiation when it takes place, will need the UK to have as much to bargain with as possible (discussions etc with US, Canada, China, India etc). The other key point is that this will take time, but once negotiations are underway, it will largely be done on principles of net benefit: i.e. the talks will continue as long as actors in the process (UK and German industry for example) want to derive some kind of beneficial outcome. Political economy questions (such as punishing the UK etc) will largely recede as the process continues, but are most likely to be the first and foremost challenges.
As a Leaver I don't doubt my vote was correctly cast, but this evidence really does take a pin to b
ks spouted especially by the likes of Lawson and others, who casually referred to WTO rules, during the campaign, as some kind of mythic get out of jail card. They won't be, and the UK ha s hard road ahead of it. Arguably it is a lapse of the grossest kind that Parliament held this session 3 weeks after the actual vote...
Ridgemont said:
The following might help cut through some of this morass:
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/edd13153-...
Evidence to the Parliamentary Treasury Committee, from this Wednesday, by;
Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, Director, European Centre for International Political Economy
Shanker Singham, Director of Economic Policy and Prosperity Studies, Legatum Institute
Richard North, Author
It's nearly two hours of evidence and pretty dense stuff but vital to understand what's going on. While some may be familiar with Richard North, the evidence from Makiyama and Singham is more relevant as they have been involved in trade negotiations.
In short:
WTO - UK as a founding signatory to GATT and a member via the EU will probably be able to settle a WTO deal. However.
The key to understanding the process is
1) the terms of accession to WTO are principally to be agreed as part of the article 50 negotiations (as the UK sits as part of the EU currently) and then presented as a dual proposal by the EU and UK together. The UK cannot be a single agent here.
2) That process is 'highly likely' to be successful.
3) However WTO will *not* provide the basis for an ongoing trading relationship with the EU - the complexity and integration of the respective economies requires something significantly more detailed as WTO is largely concerned with tariff control for example and has little to say on NTBs, neverminding its lack of historical coverage for things like Services agreements that will be key to the UK's future.
It really is worth spending the time watching this if you can spare a couple of hours.
It really is a wake up call for everyone, certainly in terms of the complexity of what we are attempting to do, as well as making clear that we are in very uncharted territory here: there isn't (contrary to much of the UK debate on both sides) a set of model choices (WTO, EEA+ EEA-, EFTA etc). The absolute principle that especially Makiyama and Singham were highlighting, is that all will be up for negotiation: what we have now will not be possible (as we will no longer be part of the EU). What comes down the line will be hard hard work, and will probably be unique in, and of itself.
Possibly Singham's analysis was most apposite: the negotiation when it takes place, will need the UK to have as much to bargain with as possible (discussions etc with US, Canada, China, India etc). The other key point is that this will take time, but once negotiations are underway, it will largely be done on principles of net benefit: i.e. the talks will continue as long as actors in the process (UK and German industry for example) want to derive some kind of beneficial outcome. Political economy questions (such as punishing the UK etc) will largely recede as the process continues, but are most likely to be the first and foremost challenges.
As a Leaver I don't doubt my vote was correctly cast, but this evidence really does take a pin to bks spouted especially by the likes of Lawson and others, who casually referred to WTO rules, during the campaign, as some kind of mythic get out of jail card. They won't be, and the UK has hard road ahead of it.
Arguably it is a lapse of the grossest kind that Parliament held this session 3 weeks after the actual vote...
Good post.http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/edd13153-...
Evidence to the Parliamentary Treasury Committee, from this Wednesday, by;
Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, Director, European Centre for International Political Economy
Shanker Singham, Director of Economic Policy and Prosperity Studies, Legatum Institute
Richard North, Author
It's nearly two hours of evidence and pretty dense stuff but vital to understand what's going on. While some may be familiar with Richard North, the evidence from Makiyama and Singham is more relevant as they have been involved in trade negotiations.
In short:
WTO - UK as a founding signatory to GATT and a member via the EU will probably be able to settle a WTO deal. However.
The key to understanding the process is
1) the terms of accession to WTO are principally to be agreed as part of the article 50 negotiations (as the UK sits as part of the EU currently) and then presented as a dual proposal by the EU and UK together. The UK cannot be a single agent here.
2) That process is 'highly likely' to be successful.
3) However WTO will *not* provide the basis for an ongoing trading relationship with the EU - the complexity and integration of the respective economies requires something significantly more detailed as WTO is largely concerned with tariff control for example and has little to say on NTBs, neverminding its lack of historical coverage for things like Services agreements that will be key to the UK's future.
It really is worth spending the time watching this if you can spare a couple of hours.
It really is a wake up call for everyone, certainly in terms of the complexity of what we are attempting to do, as well as making clear that we are in very uncharted territory here: there isn't (contrary to much of the UK debate on both sides) a set of model choices (WTO, EEA+ EEA-, EFTA etc). The absolute principle that especially Makiyama and Singham were highlighting, is that all will be up for negotiation: what we have now will not be possible (as we will no longer be part of the EU). What comes down the line will be hard hard work, and will probably be unique in, and of itself.
Possibly Singham's analysis was most apposite: the negotiation when it takes place, will need the UK to have as much to bargain with as possible (discussions etc with US, Canada, China, India etc). The other key point is that this will take time, but once negotiations are underway, it will largely be done on principles of net benefit: i.e. the talks will continue as long as actors in the process (UK and German industry for example) want to derive some kind of beneficial outcome. Political economy questions (such as punishing the UK etc) will largely recede as the process continues, but are most likely to be the first and foremost challenges.
As a Leaver I don't doubt my vote was correctly cast, but this evidence really does take a pin to b
ks spouted especially by the likes of Lawson and others, who casually referred to WTO rules, during the campaign, as some kind of mythic get out of jail card. They won't be, and the UK has hard road ahead of it.Arguably it is a lapse of the grossest kind that Parliament held this session 3 weeks after the actual vote...
Didn't have time to watch the video, but thanks for the link, I'll try to watch it later.
Bold part is basically my view too, and what concerns me is that DD is adamant that WTO is a joker card. What also concerns me is that people who know more than posters on PH, and most certainly more than me, seems to think that this will be very prolonged process taking years.
ash73 said:
Did anyone read the article I posted above?
As I understand it, the issue is not membership (the UK is a member, and will remain one), the issue is representation is at the EU level and so complex WTO mechanisms such as tariff rate quotas are defined at the EU level; the UK will need to unpick itself from these as part of a complex negotiation process.
Nobody said it was going to be easy.
My understanding is that you are correct, UK will remain member, it will have to renegotiate trade contracts with others, in addition to negotiations with EU itself. IMO, it's not just about 'easy' or 'hard'. It's about the time scale involved and uncertainty that goes with it, as well as issue of resources necessary to get 'a best deal'.As I understand it, the issue is not membership (the UK is a member, and will remain one), the issue is representation is at the EU level and so complex WTO mechanisms such as tariff rate quotas are defined at the EU level; the UK will need to unpick itself from these as part of a complex negotiation process.
Nobody said it was going to be easy.
Sam All said:
DavidJG said:
Sam All said:
The UK will manage to fk up its own economy just fine without EU assistance. 
Fixed that for you.k up its own economy just fine without EU assistance. The enormous variation in economic success across the EU ought to tell you that EU membership does NOT guarantee economic success or failure, hence it is daft to claim that the EU would dictate the future of the UK economy had we decided to stay in.
one but May !!!! Please please !!!!
BlackLabel said:
Wonder what would happen to May if she scrapes through with a single figure majority?
She will be in about the same situation that Mr Cameron would have been had he stayed on. She would need to be incredibly thick skinned and at every opportunity journalists would be questioning what authority she has techiedave said:
She will be in about the same situation that Mr Cameron would have been had he stayed on. She would need to be incredibly thick skinned and at every opportunity journalists would be questioning what authority she has
In that case we'll she'll drop herself into a vat of molten metal, and we'll be back to Boris, Gove and that nutter.BlackLabel said:
Wonder what would happen to May if she scrapes through with a single figure majority?
My guess: the party will rally around her, because a slim majority doesn't provide the foundations for a bloody internal fight. If OTOH she ends up with a minority Govt, I can see that leading to a second election in the autumn and I can't see her being leader going into that. The biggest problem there though is who can head the Tories, take Corbyn on and crush him?
Greg66 said:
BlackLabel said:
Wonder what would happen to May if she scrapes through with a single figure majority?
My guess: the party will rally around her, because a slim majority doesn't provide the foundations for a bloody internal fight. If OTOH she ends up with a minority Govt, I can see that leading to a second election in the autumn and I can't see her being leader going into that. The biggest problem there though is who can head the Tories, take Corbyn on and crush him?
The momentum (literally!) is behind Corbyn now, Labour would win another election in the next 12-18 months.
don'tbesilly said:
Greg66 said:
BlackLabel said:
Wonder what would happen to May if she scrapes through with a single figure majority?
My guess: the party will rally around her, because a slim majority doesn't provide the foundations for a bloody internal fight. If OTOH she ends up with a minority Govt, I can see that leading to a second election in the autumn and I can't see her being leader going into that. The biggest problem there though is who can head the Tories, take Corbyn on and crush him?
The momentum (literally!) is behind Corbyn now, Labour would win another election in the next 12-18 months.
This , the stupid bint had better get her act together or the tories are toast...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff