CETA dead? Whom should be more worried, UK or Eurozone?
Discussion
http://www.politico.eu/article/wallonia-eu-trade-p...
Interesting article on the Brussels machinations.
Interesting article on the Brussels machinations.
davepoth said:
http://www.politico.eu/article/wallonia-eu-trade-p...
Interesting article on the Brussels machinations.
One thing about the EU...they're very persistent in trying to bash square pegs into round holes...Interesting article on the Brussels machinations.
Would seem that the CETA mess is going to end up in very simple arrangements. Not.
Let's see what happens next
jsf said:
The way it works is slightly different to the above.
During the Art50 negotiations, which is voted on with qualified Majority voting, trade arrangements can be agreed as part of the severance package.
Once that deal is done, any further changes or new trade arrangements then have to go through the normal EU procedures, which it appears, can be bodged by the EU depending on what mood they are in.
For example they chose to have all the EU governments and their local bodies ratify the Canada-EU deal, they could have ignored the Walloon regional government had they decided on that at the start. They chose to include regional government because they thought it was politically prudent to do so.
So, in summary, Art50 can cover trade arrangements, it can pretty much include anything, but once that is signed we then have any future deals with the EU via their chosen method, which is usually full approval of all 27 on the commission.
What will also become more prevalent in the future is we will also be able to benefit from any changes made to the WTO rules with the EU, the trajectory for that is to further open up the EU to third party access for finance and service providers.
That's all well and good, but does anyone really believe we'll get any sort of worthwhile deal, even through qualified majority?During the Art50 negotiations, which is voted on with qualified Majority voting, trade arrangements can be agreed as part of the severance package.
Once that deal is done, any further changes or new trade arrangements then have to go through the normal EU procedures, which it appears, can be bodged by the EU depending on what mood they are in.
For example they chose to have all the EU governments and their local bodies ratify the Canada-EU deal, they could have ignored the Walloon regional government had they decided on that at the start. They chose to include regional government because they thought it was politically prudent to do so.
So, in summary, Art50 can cover trade arrangements, it can pretty much include anything, but once that is signed we then have any future deals with the EU via their chosen method, which is usually full approval of all 27 on the commission.
What will also become more prevalent in the future is we will also be able to benefit from any changes made to the WTO rules with the EU, the trajectory for that is to further open up the EU to third party access for finance and service providers.
Either the EU is an unreasonable political project to deliver a European State run by Technocrats - in which case they'll do everything to ensure no deal for Britain to prevent anyone else thinking leaving might be a good plan - or it's a sensible, rational grouping of States, in which case, why are we leaving in the first place?
Kermit power said:
That's all well and good, but does anyone really believe we'll get any sort of worthwhile deal, even through qualified majority?
Either the EU is an unreasonable political project to deliver a European State run by Technocrats - in which case they'll do everything to ensure no deal for Britain to prevent anyone else thinking leaving might be a good plan - or it's a sensible, rational grouping of States, in which case, why are we leaving in the first place?
Exactly.Either the EU is an unreasonable political project to deliver a European State run by Technocrats - in which case they'll do everything to ensure no deal for Britain to prevent anyone else thinking leaving might be a good plan - or it's a sensible, rational grouping of States, in which case, why are we leaving in the first place?
Sometimes the hard decisions are the best.
davepoth said:
http://www.politico.eu/article/wallonia-eu-trade-p...
Interesting article on the Brussels machinations.
Interesting article. The EU has to do something but I'm not sure that's the answer as it looks an awful lot like the big players are going to call the shots and the rest just go along for the ride. Which isn't really democratic although it does address the problem of trying to get 27 states to agree. I can see a coalition of smaller (Eastern ?) states disrupting that thought process.Interesting article on the Brussels machinations.
I can't understand why, instead of going down the "more Europe, more control" route then don't simply back off and stop trying the "one-size-fits-all" approach.
For example, hold your CETA talks and come up with an outline, check with the members and see how many tick the box.
Realistically Canada couldn't care less about the smaller, poorer EU states, they want to trade with the big boys. So they'll make sure the deal is sweet for them and get Fr/Ger/It/etc onside and signing up. Once the smaller states see the deal is going to go ahead without them they can either ask for amendments, look again at their position or, should their reasons be valid, simple opt out of the deal.
For instance take ourselves and whatever deal we end up with. Would we care it Wallonia opted out of our future trading deal providing we had Germany, France and the other countries we actually sell to on board ? OK, it would no longer be an "EU Wide Deal", but what's better, getting a deal with 90% of the trading nations you'll work with anyway and having it sorted in 12 months, or taking 7 years trying to get that last 10% ? And possibly a 10% that you'll do very little trade with anyway.
Back to CETA and future EU trade deals, if they went ahead on those lines, those that opted out may wish to join in later when they see it work, or not as the case may be. It would save an awful lot of heartache but of course it would also reduce the bureaucracy required for the good ship EU......
b2hbm said:
Interesting article. The EU has to do something but I'm not sure that's the answer as it looks an awful lot like the big players are going to call the shots and the rest just go along for the ride. Which isn't really democratic although it does address the problem of trying to get 27 states to agree. I can see a coalition of smaller (Eastern ?) states disrupting that thought process.
I can't understand why, instead of going down the "more Europe, more control" route then don't simply back off and stop trying the "one-size-fits-all" approach.
For example, hold your CETA talks and come up with an outline, check with the members and see how many tick the box.
Realistically Canada couldn't care less about the smaller, poorer EU states, they want to trade with the big boys. So they'll make sure the deal is sweet for them and get Fr/Ger/It/etc onside and signing up. Once the smaller states see the deal is going to go ahead without them they can either ask for amendments, look again at their position or, should their reasons be valid, simple opt out of the deal.
For instance take ourselves and whatever deal we end up with. Would we care it Wallonia opted out of our future trading deal providing we had Germany, France and the other countries we actually sell to on board ? OK, it would no longer be an "EU Wide Deal", but what's better, getting a deal with 90% of the trading nations you'll work with anyway and having it sorted in 12 months, or taking 7 years trying to get that last 10% ? And possibly a 10% that you'll do very little trade with anyway.
Back to CETA and future EU trade deals, if they went ahead on those lines, those that opted out may wish to join in later when they see it work, or not as the case may be. It would save an awful lot of heartache but of course it would also reduce the bureaucracy required for the good ship EU......
All very sensible apart from one small problemette: the single market...I can't understand why, instead of going down the "more Europe, more control" route then don't simply back off and stop trying the "one-size-fits-all" approach.
For example, hold your CETA talks and come up with an outline, check with the members and see how many tick the box.
Realistically Canada couldn't care less about the smaller, poorer EU states, they want to trade with the big boys. So they'll make sure the deal is sweet for them and get Fr/Ger/It/etc onside and signing up. Once the smaller states see the deal is going to go ahead without them they can either ask for amendments, look again at their position or, should their reasons be valid, simple opt out of the deal.
For instance take ourselves and whatever deal we end up with. Would we care it Wallonia opted out of our future trading deal providing we had Germany, France and the other countries we actually sell to on board ? OK, it would no longer be an "EU Wide Deal", but what's better, getting a deal with 90% of the trading nations you'll work with anyway and having it sorted in 12 months, or taking 7 years trying to get that last 10% ? And possibly a 10% that you'll do very little trade with anyway.
Back to CETA and future EU trade deals, if they went ahead on those lines, those that opted out may wish to join in later when they see it work, or not as the case may be. It would save an awful lot of heartache but of course it would also reduce the bureaucracy required for the good ship EU......
The big picture is less a case of round pegs and square holes and rather the ability of the EU to reconcile two mutually incompatible ideas simultaneously: EU wide competences and democratic will. I have to say, if the ECJ is going to be the arbiter here I suspect we know the answer that will be coming down the line...
Ridgemont said:
b2hbm said:
Interesting article. The EU has to do something but I'm not sure that's the answer as it looks an awful lot like the big players are going to call the shots and the rest just go along for the ride. Which isn't really democratic although it does address the problem of trying to get 27 states to agree. I can see a coalition of smaller (Eastern ?) states disrupting that thought process.
I can't understand why, instead of going down the "more Europe, more control" route then don't simply back off and stop trying the "one-size-fits-all" approach.
For example, hold your CETA talks and come up with an outline, check with the members and see how many tick the box.
Realistically Canada couldn't care less about the smaller, poorer EU states, they want to trade with the big boys. So they'll make sure the deal is sweet for them and get Fr/Ger/It/etc onside and signing up. Once the smaller states see the deal is going to go ahead without them they can either ask for amendments, look again at their position or, should their reasons be valid, simple opt out of the deal.
For instance take ourselves and whatever deal we end up with. Would we care it Wallonia opted out of our future trading deal providing we had Germany, France and the other countries we actually sell to on board ? OK, it would no longer be an "EU Wide Deal", but what's better, getting a deal with 90% of the trading nations you'll work with anyway and having it sorted in 12 months, or taking 7 years trying to get that last 10% ? And possibly a 10% that you'll do very little trade with anyway.
Back to CETA and future EU trade deals, if they went ahead on those lines, those that opted out may wish to join in later when they see it work, or not as the case may be. It would save an awful lot of heartache but of course it would also reduce the bureaucracy required for the good ship EU......
All very sensible apart from one small problemette: the single market...I can't understand why, instead of going down the "more Europe, more control" route then don't simply back off and stop trying the "one-size-fits-all" approach.
For example, hold your CETA talks and come up with an outline, check with the members and see how many tick the box.
Realistically Canada couldn't care less about the smaller, poorer EU states, they want to trade with the big boys. So they'll make sure the deal is sweet for them and get Fr/Ger/It/etc onside and signing up. Once the smaller states see the deal is going to go ahead without them they can either ask for amendments, look again at their position or, should their reasons be valid, simple opt out of the deal.
For instance take ourselves and whatever deal we end up with. Would we care it Wallonia opted out of our future trading deal providing we had Germany, France and the other countries we actually sell to on board ? OK, it would no longer be an "EU Wide Deal", but what's better, getting a deal with 90% of the trading nations you'll work with anyway and having it sorted in 12 months, or taking 7 years trying to get that last 10% ? And possibly a 10% that you'll do very little trade with anyway.
Back to CETA and future EU trade deals, if they went ahead on those lines, those that opted out may wish to join in later when they see it work, or not as the case may be. It would save an awful lot of heartache but of course it would also reduce the bureaucracy required for the good ship EU......
The big picture is less a case of round pegs and square holes and rather the ability of the EU to reconcile two mutually incompatible ideas simultaneously: EU wide competences and democratic will. I have to say, if the ECJ is going to be the arbiter here I suspect we know the answer that will be coming down the line...
The Waloons aren't just worried about cheap Canadian agricultural produce flooding into Belgium. They're also worried about them flooding into the the rest of their European markets as well, and Belgium opting out of the trade deal would do nothing to stop that.
The problem with the EU is that it either has too much national power or not enough.
A United States of Europe could simply say "we're signing this" and then use internal policy to address impacted geographical areas, just as countries do now. A much looser grouping without the Single Market could sign individual deals.
Either stool would be a better place to sit. Trying to sit between the two is what causes trouble.
Kermit power said:
The Waloons aren't just worried about cheap Canadian agricultural produce flooding into Belgium. They're also worried about them flooding into the the rest of their European markets as well, and Belgium opting out of the trade deal would do nothing to stop that.
I take your first point about Belgium losing potential market share in which case we're back at trying to make one size fit all, and the more countries you have, the harder it becomes. You're right though, Belgium opting out wouldn't solve that one.Kermit power said:
A United States of Europe could simply say "we're signing this" and then use internal policy to address impacted geographical areas, just as countries do now. A much looser grouping without the Single Market could sign individual deals.
Either stool would be a better place to sit. Trying to sit between the two is what causes trouble.
Again I take the point. The trouble is that I'm not sure the EU would address & compensate individual countries in the longer term. All you'd need to do is say "no" for subsidies flow from then onwards and as we've seen in the Eurozone, permanent bailing out isn't something the financially strong countries (Germany) will accept.Either stool would be a better place to sit. Trying to sit between the two is what causes trouble.
I can't help but think the single market is simply too big to work in these cases without, as you say, a United States of Europe and cash transfers.
b2hbm said:
Again I take the point. The trouble is that I'm not sure the EU would address & compensate individual countries in the longer term. All you'd need to do is say "no" for subsidies flow from then onwards and as we've seen in the Eurozone, permanent bailing out isn't something the financially strong countries (Germany) will accept.
I can't help but think the single market is simply too big to work in these cases without, as you say, a United States of Europe and cash transfers.
It only works if you're one country and want to be.I can't help but think the single market is simply too big to work in these cases without, as you say, a United States of Europe and cash transfers.
Just look at the UK as an example. The South East plays the Germany role too many other areas playing Greece in the drama, and by and large we muddle on fairly happily together.
The problems start to arise when some of the Greeks (played by Nicola Sturgeon and co) start getting all uppity about their own sense of importance, and then wonder why German voters resent them.
Kermit power said:
Ridgemont said:
b2hbm said:
Interesting article. The EU has to do something but I'm not sure that's the answer as it looks an awful lot like the big players are going to call the shots and the rest just go along for the ride. Which isn't really democratic although it does address the problem of trying to get 27 states to agree. I can see a coalition of smaller (Eastern ?) states disrupting that thought process.
I can't understand why, instead of going down the "more Europe, more control" route then don't simply back off and stop trying the "one-size-fits-all" approach.
Exactly this.
For example, hold your CETA talks and come up with an outline, check with the members and see how many tick the box.
Realistically Canada couldn't care less about the smaller, poorer EU states, they want to trade with the big boys. So they'll make sure the deal is sweet for them and get Fr/Ger/It/etc onside and signing up. Once the smaller states see the deal is going to go ahead without them they can either ask for amendments, look again at their position or, should their reasons be valid, simple opt out of the deal.
For instance take ourselves and whatever deal we end up with. Would we care it Wallonia opted out of our future trading deal providing we had Germany, France and the other countries we actually sell to on board ? OK, it would no longer be an "EU Wide Deal", but what's better, getting a deal with 90% of the trading nations you'll work with anyway and having it sorted in 12 months, or taking 7 years trying to get that last 10% ? And possibly a 10% that you'll do very little trade with anyway.
Back to CETA and future EU trade deals, if they went ahead on those lines, those that opted out may wish to join in later when they see it work, or not as the case may be. It would save an awful lot of heartache but of course it would also reduce the bureaucracy required for the good ship EU......
All very sensible apart from one small problemette: the single market...I can't understand why, instead of going down the "more Europe, more control" route then don't simply back off and stop trying the "one-size-fits-all" approach.
Exactly this.
For example, hold your CETA talks and come up with an outline, check with the members and see how many tick the box.
Realistically Canada couldn't care less about the smaller, poorer EU states, they want to trade with the big boys. So they'll make sure the deal is sweet for them and get Fr/Ger/It/etc onside and signing up. Once the smaller states see the deal is going to go ahead without them they can either ask for amendments, look again at their position or, should their reasons be valid, simple opt out of the deal.
For instance take ourselves and whatever deal we end up with. Would we care it Wallonia opted out of our future trading deal providing we had Germany, France and the other countries we actually sell to on board ? OK, it would no longer be an "EU Wide Deal", but what's better, getting a deal with 90% of the trading nations you'll work with anyway and having it sorted in 12 months, or taking 7 years trying to get that last 10% ? And possibly a 10% that you'll do very little trade with anyway.
Back to CETA and future EU trade deals, if they went ahead on those lines, those that opted out may wish to join in later when they see it work, or not as the case may be. It would save an awful lot of heartache but of course it would also reduce the bureaucracy required for the good ship EU......
The big picture is less a case of round pegs and square holes and rather the ability of the EU to reconcile two mutually incompatible ideas simultaneously: EU wide competences and democratic will. I have to say, if the ECJ is going to be the arbiter here I suspect we know the answer that will be coming down the line...
The Waloons aren't just worried about cheap Canadian agricultural produce flooding into Belgium. They're also worried about them flooding into the the rest of their European markets as well, and Belgium opting out of the trade deal would do nothing to stop that.
The problem with the EU is that it either has too much national power or not enough.
A United States of Europe could simply say "we're signing this" and then use internal policy to address impacted geographical areas, just as countries do now. A much looser grouping without the Single Market could sign individual deals.
Either stool would be a better place to sit. Trying to sit between the two is what causes trouble.
turbobloke said:
Kermit power said:
Ridgemont said:
b2hbm said:
Interesting article. The EU has to do something but I'm not sure that's the answer as it looks an awful lot like the big players are going to call the shots and the rest just go along for the ride. Which isn't really democratic although it does address the problem of trying to get 27 states to agree. I can see a coalition of smaller (Eastern ?) states disrupting that thought process.
I can't understand why, instead of going down the "more Europe, more control" route then don't simply back off and stop trying the "one-size-fits-all" approach.
Exactly this.
For example, hold your CETA talks and come up with an outline, check with the members and see how many tick the box.
Realistically Canada couldn't care less about the smaller, poorer EU states, they want to trade with the big boys. So they'll make sure the deal is sweet for them and get Fr/Ger/It/etc onside and signing up. Once the smaller states see the deal is going to go ahead without them they can either ask for amendments, look again at their position or, should their reasons be valid, simple opt out of the deal.
For instance take ourselves and whatever deal we end up with. Would we care it Wallonia opted out of our future trading deal providing we had Germany, France and the other countries we actually sell to on board ? OK, it would no longer be an "EU Wide Deal", but what's better, getting a deal with 90% of the trading nations you'll work with anyway and having it sorted in 12 months, or taking 7 years trying to get that last 10% ? And possibly a 10% that you'll do very little trade with anyway.
Back to CETA and future EU trade deals, if they went ahead on those lines, those that opted out may wish to join in later when they see it work, or not as the case may be. It would save an awful lot of heartache but of course it would also reduce the bureaucracy required for the good ship EU......
All very sensible apart from one small problemette: the single market...I can't understand why, instead of going down the "more Europe, more control" route then don't simply back off and stop trying the "one-size-fits-all" approach.
Exactly this.
For example, hold your CETA talks and come up with an outline, check with the members and see how many tick the box.
Realistically Canada couldn't care less about the smaller, poorer EU states, they want to trade with the big boys. So they'll make sure the deal is sweet for them and get Fr/Ger/It/etc onside and signing up. Once the smaller states see the deal is going to go ahead without them they can either ask for amendments, look again at their position or, should their reasons be valid, simple opt out of the deal.
For instance take ourselves and whatever deal we end up with. Would we care it Wallonia opted out of our future trading deal providing we had Germany, France and the other countries we actually sell to on board ? OK, it would no longer be an "EU Wide Deal", but what's better, getting a deal with 90% of the trading nations you'll work with anyway and having it sorted in 12 months, or taking 7 years trying to get that last 10% ? And possibly a 10% that you'll do very little trade with anyway.
Back to CETA and future EU trade deals, if they went ahead on those lines, those that opted out may wish to join in later when they see it work, or not as the case may be. It would save an awful lot of heartache but of course it would also reduce the bureaucracy required for the good ship EU......
The big picture is less a case of round pegs and square holes and rather the ability of the EU to reconcile two mutually incompatible ideas simultaneously: EU wide competences and democratic will. I have to say, if the ECJ is going to be the arbiter here I suspect we know the answer that will be coming down the line...
The Waloons aren't just worried about cheap Canadian agricultural produce flooding into Belgium. They're also worried about them flooding into the the rest of their European markets as well, and Belgium opting out of the trade deal would do nothing to stop that.
The problem with the EU is that it either has too much national power or not enough.
A United States of Europe could simply say "we're signing this" and then use internal policy to address impacted geographical areas, just as countries do now. A much looser grouping without the Single Market could sign individual deals.
Either stool would be a better place to sit. Trying to sit between the two is what causes trouble.
And the big boys get their way....
The next steps will be worth watching
The next steps will be worth watching
Ridgemont said:
...
The big picture is less a case of round pegs and square holes and rather the ability of the EU to reconcile two mutually incompatible ideas simultaneously...
Isn't that square pegs and round holes...?The big picture is less a case of round pegs and square holes and rather the ability of the EU to reconcile two mutually incompatible ideas simultaneously...
Kermit power said:
b2hbm said:
Again I take the point. The trouble is that I'm not sure the EU would address & compensate individual countries in the longer term. All you'd need to do is say "no" for subsidies flow from then onwards and as we've seen in the Eurozone, permanent bailing out isn't something the financially strong countries (Germany) will accept.
I can't help but think the single market is simply too big to work in these cases without, as you say, a United States of Europe and cash transfers.
It only works if you're one country and want to be.I can't help but think the single market is simply too big to work in these cases without, as you say, a United States of Europe and cash transfers.
Just look at the UK as an example. The South East plays the Germany role too many other areas playing Greece in the drama, and by and large we muddle on fairly happily together.
The problems start to arise when some of the Greeks (played by Nicola Sturgeon and co) start getting all uppity about their own sense of importance, and then wonder why German voters resent them.
good analogy, I never thought of the UK like that !b2hbm said:
Kermit power said:
b2hbm said:
Again I take the point. The trouble is that I'm not sure the EU would address & compensate individual countries in the longer term. All you'd need to do is say "no" for subsidies flow from then onwards and as we've seen in the Eurozone, permanent bailing out isn't something the financially strong countries (Germany) will accept.
I can't help but think the single market is simply too big to work in these cases without, as you say, a United States of Europe and cash transfers.
It only works if you're one country and want to be.I can't help but think the single market is simply too big to work in these cases without, as you say, a United States of Europe and cash transfers.
Just look at the UK as an example. The South East plays the Germany role too many other areas playing Greece in the drama, and by and large we muddle on fairly happily together.
The problems start to arise when some of the Greeks (played by Nicola Sturgeon and co) start getting all uppity about their own sense of importance, and then wonder why German voters resent them.
good analogy, I never thought of the UK like that !davepoth said:
b2hbm said:
Kermit power said:
b2hbm said:
Again I take the point. The trouble is that I'm not sure the EU would address & compensate individual countries in the longer term. All you'd need to do is say "no" for subsidies flow from then onwards and as we've seen in the Eurozone, permanent bailing out isn't something the financially strong countries (Germany) will accept.
I can't help but think the single market is simply too big to work in these cases without, as you say, a United States of Europe and cash transfers.
It only works if you're one country and want to be.I can't help but think the single market is simply too big to work in these cases without, as you say, a United States of Europe and cash transfers.
Just look at the UK as an example. The South East plays the Germany role too many other areas playing Greece in the drama, and by and large we muddle on fairly happily together.
The problems start to arise when some of the Greeks (played by Nicola Sturgeon and co) start getting all uppity about their own sense of importance, and then wonder why German voters resent them.
good analogy, I never thought of the UK like that !The EU by comparison is trying to ram together totally different cultures, finances and industries into one conglomerate, run by failed politicians. It's never going to work.
Told you the coffee pot trick would work (no doubt with some cash to sweeten that up).
jsf said:
davepoth said:
b2hbm said:
Kermit power said:
b2hbm said:
Again I take the point. The trouble is that I'm not sure the EU would address & compensate individual countries in the longer term. All you'd need to do is say "no" for subsidies flow from then onwards and as we've seen in the Eurozone, permanent bailing out isn't something the financially strong countries (Germany) will accept.
I can't help but think the single market is simply too big to work in these cases without, as you say, a United States of Europe and cash transfers.
It only works if you're one country and want to be.I can't help but think the single market is simply too big to work in these cases without, as you say, a United States of Europe and cash transfers.
Just look at the UK as an example. The South East plays the Germany role too many other areas playing Greece in the drama, and by and large we muddle on fairly happily together.
The problems start to arise when some of the Greeks (played by Nicola Sturgeon and co) start getting all uppity about their own sense of importance, and then wonder why German voters resent them.
good analogy, I never thought of the UK like that !The EU by comparison is trying to ram together totally different cultures, finances and industries into one conglomerate, run by failed politicians. It's never going to work.
Told you the coffee pot trick would work (no doubt with some cash to sweeten that up).
As for cultural similarity in the UK, I would question that. Yes, we all speak the same language, but beyond that, I think there are huge differences here, and I think the Brexit vote highlighted that.
I've spent a lot of my career working with other Middle Class Europeans (and Americans for that matter), and once you overcome the language difference, I've got infinitely more in common with them and share far more of their outlook on life than I would with a working class person in a Northern town or even, probably, a working class person half a mile away from me here.
I would also question the notion that most of us think of ourselves as British. I never used to give it much thought one way or the other, but thanks to the whining of the SNP, I now very much consider myself English first, and British a distant second. If the Scots decide to stop whinging, start pulling their weight and expressing a desire to actually be British, then I'd go back to not giving it much thought, but if there were a referendum tomorrow on Scotland leaving the Union and everyone in the Union had a vote, I'd definitely vote them out, and I suspect a very large chunk of the English population would do the same.
davepoth said:
It doesn't quite work as an analogy because we have internal transfers - the richer bits of the UK don't have a problem with paying for the poorer parts.
Speak for yourself. I especially resent funding economically useless parts of the UK who then have the nerve to endlessly whinge and moan and claim it's my fault. REALIST123 said:
ATG said:
Welshbeef said:
I cannot wait for the UK to recreate trade deals with the commonwealth.
Down with the EU up with UK power.
You might want to look at a map and also at the size of the commonwealth economies before getting excited.Down with the EU up with UK power.
Size of commonwealth economy is similar to that of the EC, bigger if you remove the UK from the EU. Population of commonwealth several times that of EC, with much more potential for development.
What's your point?
A large chunk of the Commonwealth is India. It is notoriously hard to trade with. The speed and incompetence of their bureaucracy is legendary. I've worked for businesses that tried to expand into Russia, China and India. They'd set up, got ripped off, and retreated from Russia and China before they'd even got permission to trade in India.
So, apart from the UK and its one bureaucratically crippled and poor BRIC nation, what exactly has the Commonwealth got to show for itself economically? Three developed economies; Canada, Australia and New Zealand whose combined GDP is slightly larger than ours. The other 47 members are all tiny or small developing economies.
It's not a political statement to say that the Commonwealth is in no way equivalent to the EU for UK trade. It is just a statement of the blindingly obvious.
ATG said:
A large chunk of the Commonwealth is India. It is notoriously hard to trade with. The speed and incompetence of their bureaucracy is legendary. I've worked for businesses that tried to expand into Russia, China and India. They'd set up, got ripped off, and retreated from Russia and China before they'd even got permission to trade in India.
China used to be horrendous to do business with as little as ten years ago, but look at it now. A free trade deal will make it much easier in India (British companies will effectively be pre-approved to do business) but the trick is to get in on the ground floor. It's a challenge, but the potential upside is enormous. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff