The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

159 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
paulrockliffe said:
So if you were a Labour voter, for example, that supported higher taxes and higher public spending you might think external tariffs would be a good thing as it increases the Government's ability to spend, transfers wealth from those with money to those without, while protecting jobs in the UK from external competition. Yet.....

When did the left become such obnoxious capitalist pig-dogs?
Fine in principle, except tariffs affect basic food items too.

The BBC report said the tariff on a watch was 1.5% but is 45% on meat.

Burwood

18,709 posts

248 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
Burwood said:
Lol, just made up nonsense if course. There is a fundamental reason that the burden is round the wrong way. Think about it.
Do explain?
we have a trade surplus of 60B. I'll bet anything you want that the net figure is higher for them.

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

159 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
Burwood said:
we have a trade surplus of 60B. I'll bet anything you want that the net figure is higher for them.
We do?

Got a link to proof?

Murph7355

37,879 posts

258 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
Fine in principle, except tariffs affect basic food items too.

The BBC report said the tariff on a watch was 1.5% but is 45% on meat.
Except I think it's generally accepted that current EU tariffs on food, and its approach to CAP are keeping food prices artificially high across the EU.

Which we will no longer have to do.

Digga

40,478 posts

285 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
Jockman said:
FiF said:
What I don't see is this attitude that we aren't even allowed to discuss deals with non EU states during the next two years until we actually exit. I can see the deals can't be legally signed and actioned until then, but how can they stop discussions? Frankly one reason to be glad about getting rid of the uppity twerps.
Them's the rules, I'm afraid. We both know that Trade deals are likely to follow quite swiftly 2 years from now so there will be unofficial discussions.
Apparently not. I've also posted this on the Article 50 thread:

They had EU vice -President Ioan Mircea Pașcu on BBC News last night and an interesting point was (quite robustly) put to him by the presenter; that to the letter of Article 50, future trade deals should be negotiated in parallel - i.e. at the same time - as the exit deal.

The EU leaders say the UK must first agree its exit terms before talks can move on to future ties, but this seems contrary to the fairly plainly stated intent of Article 50.

///ajd

8,964 posts

208 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
Burwood said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Burwood said:
Lol, just made up nonsense if course. There is a fundamental reason that the burden is round the wrong way. Think about it.
Do explain?
we have a trade surplus of 60B. I'll bet anything you want that the net figure is higher for them.
Depends on how you view it.

When I have imported from China, tariffs are applied to the exported goods, but it is me who picks up the tab. The exporter just leaves the cost to the buyer.

This is in practice what BMW would do. You can be sure the tariff would appear on the invoice, just like VAT.

BMW are worried not because they would pay the tariff, but how that may affect their need to reduce their base price to remain competitive or risk being 10% more than e.g. a Jag. It would likely be a carefully determined mix by marketing. Pass on the full tariff, but maybe cut base price a few %.

The question of whether we would apply the same tariffs is one raised earlier. Would Jag keep their factory in the UK if they had a 10% tariff on all exports to the EU, but BMW had nothing to pay the other way around? Jag would shift all production to the EU (Slovakia) if the govt allowed such a gradient to develop. The numbers would quiokly make it inevitable, and make a EU bank transit van factory loan look like loose change.



PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

159 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
Except I think it's generally accepted that current EU tariffs on food, and its approach to CAP are keeping food prices artificially high across the EU.

Which we will no longer have to do.
Are you sure they aren't WTO tariffs?

It came across that way in the report.

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

263 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
Are you sure they aren't WTO tariffs?

It came across that way in the report.
They are tariffs the EU are choosing to charge, and that we don't have to charge.

Jockman

17,925 posts

162 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
Digga said:
Jockman said:
FiF said:
What I don't see is this attitude that we aren't even allowed to discuss deals with non EU states during the next two years until we actually exit. I can see the deals can't be legally signed and actioned until then, but how can they stop discussions? Frankly one reason to be glad about getting rid of the uppity twerps.
Them's the rules, I'm afraid. We both know that Trade deals are likely to follow quite swiftly 2 years from now so there will be unofficial discussions.
Apparently not. I've also posted this on the Article 50 thread:

They had EU vice -President Ioan Mircea Pa?cu on BBC News last night and an interesting point was (quite robustly) put to him by the presenter; that to the letter of Article 50, future trade deals should be negotiated in parallel - i.e. at the same time - as the exit deal.

The EU leaders say the UK must first agree its exit terms before talks can move on to future ties, but this seems contrary to the fairly plainly stated intent of Article 50.
Just clocked it Digga.

The rules I'm alluding to are trade negotiations with ROW, you're talking about trade negotiations with the EU.

To add to your point the FM of Estonia? was on R4 this morning and he mention how all discussions are to run in parallel ie, exit bill, protection of EU nationals in UK, trade, security (very big issue to them as UK contributes most forces to their protection, for want of a better word).

Tusk insists on unity and I think he's correct during these early brexit days. How strong that unity stays over 2 years as nations realise their priorities may be sidelined for the greater good, remains to be seen.

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

159 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
They are tariffs the EU are choosing to charge, and that we don't have to charge.
I would have though whoever produced the figures will have assumed EU WTO tariffs for UK exports to EU, and default WTO tariffs for EU exports to UK as the UK hasn't established their base rates yet as far as I am aware.

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

263 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
I would have though whoever produced the figures will have assumed EU WTO tariffs for UK exports to EU, and default WTO tariffs for EU exports to UK as the UK hasn't established their base rates yet as far as I am aware.
There no such thing as WTPO tariffs though. Just a maximum tariff WTO will allow. Assuming the maximum is fine if you want to create a pessimistic scenario but not necessarily realistic.

Jockman

17,925 posts

162 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
There no such thing as WTPO tariffs though. Just a maximum tariff WTO will allow. Assuming the maximum is fine if you want to create a pessimistic scenario but not necessarily realistic.
This seems to be the tactic with the exit bill. Calculate the worst case figure of 60bn Euros and reinforce it. Do NOT mention the best case figure of circa 25bn.

Burwood

18,709 posts

248 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
Burwood said:
we have a trade surplus of 60B. I'll bet anything you want that the net figure is higher for them.
We do?

Got a link to proof?
This is going to be one of those things you just can't accept-im not engaging with someone who can't even accept the fact that we buy MORE from the EU!! Its a fact-do your own DD. Im not spoon feeding you. FFS it's like being on the Flat Earth Society-yeah the Earth is only 10,000 years old and dinosaurs were on Noahs boat.


Fastdruid

8,703 posts

154 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
BBC tv news are reporting that a UK exit at WTO would see UK consumer costs increase by $16BN
That's assuming that the UK govt imposed maximum permissible import tariffs.
Exactly. It's the maximum not what is more likely. As with so many scare news items it's based on one scenario with no attempt at mitigation of the impact.

The UK *could* just go "we'll leave tariffs at exactly what they were before until we do a trade deal". There is I believe a bit of a time limit on doing such things but only so much as it can't be indefinite, doing it until you had a trade deal in place and replicating already existing tariffs levels would be acceptable.

///ajd

8,964 posts

208 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Are you sure they aren't WTO tariffs?

It came across that way in the report.
They are tariffs the EU are choosing to charge, and that we don't have to charge.
But if we went WTO with EU, would that be 45% on our meat exports?

French farmers wouldn't like that.

Do we export much lamb to EU?

turbobloke

104,435 posts

262 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
Fastdruid said:
Dr Jekyll said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
BBC tv news are reporting that a UK exit at WTO would see UK consumer costs increase by $16BN
That's assuming that the UK govt imposed maximum permissible import tariffs.
Exactly. It's the maximum not what is more likely. As with so many scare news items it's based on one scenario with no attempt at mitigation of the impact.
Exactly what we should expect from the biased beeb. It's not news it's advocacy.

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

159 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
Burwood said:
This is going to be one of those things you just can't accept-im not engaging with someone who can't even accept the fact that we buy MORE from the EU!! Its a fact-do your own DD. Im not spoon feeding you. FFS it's like being on the Flat Earth Society-yeah the Earth is only 10,000 years old and dinosaurs were on Noahs boat.
I agree we buy more. That means we have a trade deficit not a trade surplus.

So the tariffs the UK consumer will pay is likely to be more than the tariffs the EU consumer will pay, which is what the BBC report stated.

But you claimed we would not, at least that was how I read your comment.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Friday 31st March 09:04

turbobloke

104,435 posts

262 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
Burwood said:
This is going to be one of those things you just can't accept-im not engaging with someone who can't even accept the fact that we buy MORE from the EU!! Its a fact-do your own DD. Im not spoon feeding you. FFS it's like being on the Flat Earth Society-yeah the Earth is only 10,000 years old and dinosaurs were on Noahs boat.
I agree we buy more.

So the tariffs the UK consumer will pay is likely to be more than the tariffs the EU consumer will pay, which is what the BBC report stated.
.
According to reports, the BBC assumed an extreme position not a generally more likely one.

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

159 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
EU just formally stated no trade discussion until significant progress on withdrawal agreement made.

Burwood

18,709 posts

248 months

Friday 31st March 2017
quotequote all
I was referring to the tariffs being in surplus (net)- I have no idea why you even read the BBC. It's garbage. There is one other thing which will most likely occur and that is a swing to buy goods outside of the EU. Particularly consumer goods. Most people i know are, where possible buying UK goods first.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED