Will May Pay or Hope it Fades Away? £55b exit bill...
Discussion
///ajd said:
Would the UK be stupid to allow WTO to happen?
WTO is an absolute baseline, worst-case, lowest-common-denominator.If it was anything more than that, why would countries spend so much time and effort on negotiating trade deals - and why would the ability to negotiate UK-only ones be being waved as a benefit of leaving the EU?
If trade deals are a good thing, and WTO rules a baseline, then why on earth would we be risking the relationship with our nearest neighbours, our largest trade partners?
TooMany2cvs said:
///ajd said:
Would the UK be stupid to allow WTO to happen?
WTO is an absolute baseline, worst-case, lowest-common-denominator.If it was anything more than that, why would countries spend so much time and effort on negotiating trade deals - and why would the ability to negotiate UK-only ones be being waved as a benefit of leaving the EU?
If trade deals are a good thing, and WTO rules a baseline, then why on earth would we be risking the relationship with our nearest neighbours, our largest trade partners?
You know that.
I think Tuna knows that too.
He pretty much said as much earlier, but has since wriggled on being explicit as it probably dawned that this is tantamount to saying the "no deal is better than a poor deal" bluff is clearly just that - a bluff. Some still not ready to admit that yet it seems.
///ajd said:
He pretty much said as much earlier, but has since wriggled on being explicit as it probably dawned that this is tantamount to saying the "no deal is better than a poor deal" bluff is clearly just that - a bluff. Some still not ready to admit that yet it seems.
Worse than that - I think many actually believe it...TooMany2cvs said:
WTO is an absolute baseline, worst-case, lowest-common-denominator.
If it was anything more than that, why would countries spend so much time and effort on negotiating trade deals - and why would the ability to negotiate UK-only ones be being waved as a benefit of leaving the EU?
If trade deals are a good thing, and WTO rules a baseline, then why on earth would we be risking the relationship with our nearest neighbours, our largest trade partners?
Because Brexit isn't about trade alone.If it was anything more than that, why would countries spend so much time and effort on negotiating trade deals - and why would the ability to negotiate UK-only ones be being waved as a benefit of leaving the EU?
If trade deals are a good thing, and WTO rules a baseline, then why on earth would we be risking the relationship with our nearest neighbours, our largest trade partners?
If the EU was a pure trading block, with an FTA that didn't restrict you from doing other trade deals and didn't have any political power, we wouldn't be leaving.
It's astonishing after all this time people think the reason for Brexit was trade only.
If you do accept that Brexit wasn't just about trade, then you have to accept that people were prepared to put trade at risk to achieve what was important to them. Even if the economy ended up with lower growth, a lot of people who wanted out of the EU wont be unhappy, they will see it as a price worth paying. Process that.
///ajd said:
Its interesting you put it all down to the EU as determining the outcome - but we got there - WTO would be stupid.
Would the UK be stupid to allow WTO to happen?
Your arguments are ridiculous. I've bothered to spend some time saying how I feel about the whole process, so why put so much effort into misrepresenting that? If you're representative of the EU's attitude to negotiations, then it really would be them that determines the outcome through being needlessly obtuse.Would the UK be stupid to allow WTO to happen?
No. WTO would not be stupid. It would be the best option if the EU cannot offer a trade deal without excessive restraints (for instance, control over our global tariffs, ECJ primacy etc. etc.) The WTO 'No deal' could quite genuinely be better than a bad deal - and it would be the EU that put us in that position.
The UK have said - more than once - that they believe a better deal than WTO can be reached. Do you?
TooMany2cvs said:
///ajd said:
He pretty much said as much earlier, but has since wriggled on being explicit as it probably dawned that this is tantamount to saying the "no deal is better than a poor deal" bluff is clearly just that - a bluff. Some still not ready to admit that yet it seems.
Worse than that - I think many actually believe it...TooMany2cvs said:
WTO is an absolute baseline, worst-case, lowest-common-denominator.
If it was anything more than that, why would countries spend so much time and effort on negotiating trade deals - and why would the ability to negotiate UK-only ones be being waved as a benefit of leaving the EU?
If trade deals are a good thing, and WTO rules a baseline, then why on earth would we be risking the relationship with our nearest neighbours, our largest trade partners?
Seriously? The hint is in the title - 'T' - for trade. Our arrangement with the EU covers a whole bunch of things that WTO doesn't. There are opportunities for collaboration, security, immigration and so on that are all completely outside the WTO remit and don't clash with the EU requirement for a centralised organisation.If it was anything more than that, why would countries spend so much time and effort on negotiating trade deals - and why would the ability to negotiate UK-only ones be being waved as a benefit of leaving the EU?
If trade deals are a good thing, and WTO rules a baseline, then why on earth would we be risking the relationship with our nearest neighbours, our largest trade partners?
Tuna said:
Your arguments are ridiculous. I've bothered to spend some time saying how I feel about the whole process, so why put so much effort into misrepresenting that? If you're representative of the EU's attitude to negotiations, then it really would be them that determines the outcome through being needlessly obtuse.
No. WTO would not be stupid. It would be the best option if the EU cannot offer a trade deal without excessive restraints (for instance, control over our global tariffs, ECJ primacy etc. etc.) The WTO 'No deal' could quite genuinely be better than a bad deal - and it would be the EU that put us in that position.
The UK have said - more than once - that they believe a better deal than WTO can be reached. Do you?
I have not misrepresented anything.No. WTO would not be stupid. It would be the best option if the EU cannot offer a trade deal without excessive restraints (for instance, control over our global tariffs, ECJ primacy etc. etc.) The WTO 'No deal' could quite genuinely be better than a bad deal - and it would be the EU that put us in that position.
The UK have said - more than once - that they believe a better deal than WTO can be reached. Do you?
First you said - in relation to trade - we'd be screwed / badly impacted if trade was not sorted out to retain current trade with the EU on largely unchanged basis. In your own words it would be "stupid". This I read to mean avoiding tariffs and friction at customs. Avoiding WTO really.
You now refuse to admit WTO would be stupid but are careful to make it very very clear that the EU is the only blocker that might force WTO if they don't give us effectively frictionless trade whilst dodging the linked 4 freedoms and even ECJ etc. Hmm. Nothing to do with the UK perhaps being unreasonable in its expectation then.
The UK have said many many things. Stuff on buses and stuff about going to whistle. A deal is possible but it smells at the moment like the EU are suggesting a lame Canada FTA which is a big backwards step from our current deal.
So it seems - it would be stupid for both sides to not have the best possible deal for trade.
It would be stupid for the UK to go to WTO.
It would not be stupid for the UK to go WTO if the nasty EU insist on things like the ECJ to enable a union of customs and similar.
You seem to suggest we'll have to do whatever the EU decide and not consider moving on any of our self imposed red lines no matter what the impact - including WTO.
It would be stupid for both the UK and EU to revert to WTO rules.
Regrettably, unless they come to a trade deal, that is what will happen.
I know you want WTO to be so scary that it all gets called off, but that isn’t an option - the implications politically would be almost literally revolutionary, which is why everyone knows we are leaving the EU by hook or by crook.
Carl_Manchester said:
Coolbanana said:
I can, to a degree, understand a Leave Voter voting because they were convinced the economy wouldn't take a serious hit or that it would not be bad enough to cause much harm but a Leave Voter who considers the economy as less important an issue and selfishly disregards his or her fellow Britons as a result? Hmm.
I have explained to her indoors that those £90 makeup blushers and £100 pm mobile phone contracts will be a thing of the past 
I drive a Polo rather than a 911 Turbo now. Sacrifices had to be made. We are prepared and ready for the rubber glove treatment.
Tongue in cheek of course but I think people in general have gotten used to that £4 coffee too much. A bit of cold turkey on that front will be for the longer term benefit of the country.
Our country and life in general was better in the late 90's - whats all the fuss about if we have to regress a little economically? worshipping money alone won't progress our nation in the way that we need it to.
We put too much emphasis on the value of pure economics at the cost of the fabric of society.
And all those people sleeping rough in Manchester will still be there in 10 years as it is not a money problem causing it, it is a societal/behavioural one based on the human condition, both theirs and ours.
How do you know you won't be one of those whose livelihood, savings and future is destroyed?
What makes you safe from that?
///ajd said:
I have not misrepresented anything.
First you said - in relation to trade - we'd be screwed / badly impacted if trade was not sorted out to retain current trade with the EU on largely unchanged basis. In your own words it would be "stupid". This I read to mean avoiding tariffs and friction at customs. Avoiding WTO really.
You now refuse to admit WTO would be stupid but are careful to make it very very clear that the EU is the only blocker that might force WTO if they don't give us effectively frictionless trade whilst dodging the linked 4 freedoms and even ECJ etc. Hmm. Nothing to do with the UK perhaps being unreasonable in its expectation then.
Do you spot where you leaped to a conclusion all of your own?First you said - in relation to trade - we'd be screwed / badly impacted if trade was not sorted out to retain current trade with the EU on largely unchanged basis. In your own words it would be "stupid". This I read to mean avoiding tariffs and friction at customs. Avoiding WTO really.
You now refuse to admit WTO would be stupid but are careful to make it very very clear that the EU is the only blocker that might force WTO if they don't give us effectively frictionless trade whilst dodging the linked 4 freedoms and even ECJ etc. Hmm. Nothing to do with the UK perhaps being unreasonable in its expectation then.
I've said before when we've had the tariff discussions that pretty much any tariffs the EU can levy on our exports to them is already priced into the drop in the exchange rate (funny how markets work, isn't it?). WTO wouldn't be as big a deal as you make out, and would still allow us to strategically lower tariffs on our imports.
///ajd said:
The UK have said many many things. Stuff on buses and stuff about going to whistle.
Oh FFS. The UK has not said anything. Some people have gone out of their way to misinterpret things that specific individuals and groups have said.In fact it's a constant theme for you - it doesn't matter what people say, you choose to interpret it as you see fit. You do it to people on this forum, you do it with the politicians - you even managed to interpret what the boss of Nissan actually meant just by looking at his eyes.
///ajd said:
You seem to suggest we'll have to do whatever the EU decide and not consider moving on any of our self imposed red lines no matter what the impact - including WTO.
I give in.///ajd said:
Tuna said:
The UK Government have said - more than once - that they believe a better deal than WTO can be reached.
Tuna said:
Oh FFS. The UK has not said anything.
Well make you mind up. Your position is at best confusing.Tuna said:
Indeed. Poor choice of words in the first one. Fixed it now. Still confused?
Yes a bit - if we can go back a few steps. You said it would be "stupid" to allow UK-EU trade to be impeded to any great extent over what we have currently.
You have also said UK-EU trade would be "basically OK, not as bad as many say" under WTO, which is therefore I guess "not the stupid you were referring to".
So what is the "stupid" that is worse than WTO that will really damage UK-EU trade, and how would this come about?
Edited by ///ajd on Sunday 3rd December 00:08
///ajd said:
So what is the "stupid" that is worse than WTO that will really damage UK-EU trade, and how would this come about?
I'm pretty sure I already went over this..Stupid would be if Remainers fear-mongering over 'hard' brexit forced our negotiators to agree to a 'half-in, half-out' deal where the EU retains control over our tariff regime and justice system, whilst we loose influence over setting of tariffs and laws.
Some Remainers are so determined to avoid leaving that they would happily hog-tie us to a deal that reduces our ability to trade freely.
Tuna said:
I'm pretty sure I already went over this..
Stupid would be if Remainers fear-mongering over 'hard' brexit forced our negotiators to agree to a 'half-in, half-out' deal where the EU retains control over our tariff regime and justice system, whilst we loose influence over setting of tariffs and laws.
Some Remainers are so determined to avoid leaving that they would happily hog-tie us to a deal that reduces our ability to trade freely.
I don't have your confidence that once we have left the EU the UK will be quickly effecting FTA's with the rest of the world.Stupid would be if Remainers fear-mongering over 'hard' brexit forced our negotiators to agree to a 'half-in, half-out' deal where the EU retains control over our tariff regime and justice system, whilst we loose influence over setting of tariffs and laws.
Some Remainers are so determined to avoid leaving that they would happily hog-tie us to a deal that reduces our ability to trade freely.
If the UK is to get the deep and special partnership which May refers to, I suspect we will have to agree to match the EU tariffs.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff