How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 5)
Discussion
PurpleMoonlight said:
Sway said:
Yep: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/...
Note, this is "WTO transition", not "withdrawal transition"...
Paywall.Note, this is "WTO transition", not "withdrawal transition"...
Ghibli said:
I'm basing it on the fact that FTA are better than WTO.
If you can't understand that and you think that leaving without a deal is the best option for the Uk and the reduction in the value of the pound is good for the average man on the street that's up to you.
Thanks for the PH opinion. I don't agree with it.
If you can't understand that and you think that leaving without a deal is the best option for the Uk and the reduction in the value of the pound is good for the average man on the street that's up to you.
Thanks for the PH opinion. I don't agree with it.
You keep trying to tell me what i think. All I am doing is trying to find out why you think the way you do.
An FTA will be better than WTO in most circumstances. The problem with the EU/other nations FTAs is that they will include provisions which, whilst they might be good for protecting the widget growers of Umbria, are actually bad for UK consumers of something else.
In other words, the deal between the EU and other nations is a deal designed from the outset as a compromise to benefit as many people as possible across the EU whilst recognising that some people in the EU will be disadvantaged by elements of it, whereas a deal between the UK and another country would be specific to the parties involved and is more likely to produce a more mutually beneficial outcome for both countries and their peoples.
Now, I will concede that :
1. This will not always be the case for all goods under every negotiation
2. The EU will have more 'clout' than the UK when negotiating - although whether that clout has always been used in the best interests of UK consumers is open to debate
3. Not having an FTA with the EU on day one is going to cause some problems and generate some costs. For both sides. That is not good. But it could be avoided if pragmatism and common sense (coupled with a recognition of the fact that the UK really is leaving) were the drivers in the negotiations rather than political posturing.
Anyway, lunchtime over, back to work (unless your day job is to post nonsense on the internet?)
andymadmak said:
Ghibli said:
andymadmak said:
OK, so we can trade under WTO. Now what costs would be involved in that trade that we currently do not have to pay?
You can express them as a % of the value if that makes it easier for you
We would have tarriffs with the EU and if we lose our trade agreements we will have tarriffs with those countries.You can express them as a % of the value if that makes it easier for you
Perhaps you could look up all the agreements and tarriffs and let me know.
What's the problem? The paperwork? The tariffs? Come on now Ghibli, you surely have to have a reason for objecting to a trading system that most of the world make use of?
One example of the change:
BBC article said:
Every WTO member has a list of tariffs (taxes on imports of goods) and quotas (limits on the number of goods) that they apply to other countries. These are known as their WTO schedules.
The average EU tariff is pretty low (about 2.6% for non-agricultural products) - but, in some sectors, tariffs can be quite high. Under WTO rules, cars and car parts, for example, would be taxed at 10% every time they crossed the UK-EU border. And agricultural tariffs are significantly higher, rising to an average of over 35% for dairy products.
After Brexit, the UK could choose to lower tariffs or waive them altogether, in an attempt to stimulate free trade. That could mean some cheaper products coming into the country for consumers but it could also risk driving some UK producers out of business.
It's important to remember that, under the WTO's "most favoured nation" rules, the UK couldn't lower tariffs for the EU, or any specific country, alone. It would have to treat every other WTO member around the world in the same way.
My understanding of this is that any car built in the UK that used parts manufactured in the EU would increase in price as there would be a 10% tariff applied to those parts. In turn completed cars would cost more in the EU as a 10% tariff would be applied when they are imported into the EU. The average EU tariff is pretty low (about 2.6% for non-agricultural products) - but, in some sectors, tariffs can be quite high. Under WTO rules, cars and car parts, for example, would be taxed at 10% every time they crossed the UK-EU border. And agricultural tariffs are significantly higher, rising to an average of over 35% for dairy products.
After Brexit, the UK could choose to lower tariffs or waive them altogether, in an attempt to stimulate free trade. That could mean some cheaper products coming into the country for consumers but it could also risk driving some UK producers out of business.
It's important to remember that, under the WTO's "most favoured nation" rules, the UK couldn't lower tariffs for the EU, or any specific country, alone. It would have to treat every other WTO member around the world in the same way.
So for example a MINI produced at its Oxford plant would cost more in the UK as parts are sourced from the EU (these costs could be avoided in the EU by transferring production destined for the European market to its plant in Holland) whilst BMW's built in Germany that use engines built in its Hams Hall plant in the UK would be subject to a 10% tariff on the engine as it entered the EU and then another 10% tariff on the car as it was imported into the UK.
There's an old Guardian article that illustrates this- the MINI's crankshaft apparently crosses the Channel three times before being fitted to the car, meaning that it would be subject to the 10% tariff three times.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/03/b...
It's examples like this that are the reason for so few politicians and even fewer businesspeople wanting to leave without a deal.
PurpleMoonlight said:
B'stard Child said:
You've been told loads of times how to get round that - even when you are in bed
Refresh me?
Title of the article is included so you want that captured
Then past that into a search engine - like google (other flavours available)
f
k me look what is possible
FT article said:
Brexit will be shaped by the World Trade Organization in at least three ways.
First, the so-called “WTO option” would be the default position if there is no trade agreement between the UK and EU (and indeed between the UK and anywhere else) when the UK leaves the EU. The UK would then have to apply the same tariffs and other measures to all imports, including those from the EU. The extent to which this outcome is feared will affect whether any trade deals are achieved in time. The WTO option is the cold hard floor on which the UK will splat down if no safety net is in place in time.
Second, the WTO provides rules for what can and cannot be done with trade agreements. For example, sector-specific agreements are not permitted. Agreements have to cover a substantial portion of trade. A country cannot just pick cherries, or any other item, as a specific subject for a trade deal. There can, for example, be no deals just for automobiles from Germany or anywhere else.
And third there are the schedules, the subject of this post. In the days leading up to the referendum result last June, and afterwards, there was serious concern that the UK getting its own schedules at the WTO would be difficult and risky. Re-establishing the UK’s place at the WTO seemed to present yet another grand problem thrown up by Brexit, without any easy solution.
<snip>
First, the so-called “WTO option” would be the default position if there is no trade agreement between the UK and EU (and indeed between the UK and anywhere else) when the UK leaves the EU. The UK would then have to apply the same tariffs and other measures to all imports, including those from the EU. The extent to which this outcome is feared will affect whether any trade deals are achieved in time. The WTO option is the cold hard floor on which the UK will splat down if no safety net is in place in time.
Second, the WTO provides rules for what can and cannot be done with trade agreements. For example, sector-specific agreements are not permitted. Agreements have to cover a substantial portion of trade. A country cannot just pick cherries, or any other item, as a specific subject for a trade deal. There can, for example, be no deals just for automobiles from Germany or anywhere else.
And third there are the schedules, the subject of this post. In the days leading up to the referendum result last June, and afterwards, there was serious concern that the UK getting its own schedules at the WTO would be difficult and risky. Re-establishing the UK’s place at the WTO seemed to present yet another grand problem thrown up by Brexit, without any easy solution.
<snip>
Alfa numeric said:
andymadmak said:
Ghibli said:
andymadmak said:
OK, so we can trade under WTO. Now what costs would be involved in that trade that we currently do not have to pay?
You can express them as a % of the value if that makes it easier for you
We would have tarriffs with the EU and if we lose our trade agreements we will have tarriffs with those countries.You can express them as a % of the value if that makes it easier for you
Perhaps you could look up all the agreements and tarriffs and let me know.
What's the problem? The paperwork? The tariffs? Come on now Ghibli, you surely have to have a reason for objecting to a trading system that most of the world make use of?
One example of the change:
BBC article said:
Every WTO member has a list of tariffs (taxes on imports of goods) and quotas (limits on the number of goods) that they apply to other countries. These are known as their WTO schedules.
The average EU tariff is pretty low (about 2.6% for non-agricultural products) - but, in some sectors, tariffs can be quite high. Under WTO rules, cars and car parts, for example, would be taxed at 10% every time they crossed the UK-EU border. And agricultural tariffs are significantly higher, rising to an average of over 35% for dairy products.
After Brexit, the UK could choose to lower tariffs or waive them altogether, in an attempt to stimulate free trade. That could mean some cheaper products coming into the country for consumers but it could also risk driving some UK producers out of business.
It's important to remember that, under the WTO's "most favoured nation" rules, the UK couldn't lower tariffs for the EU, or any specific country, alone. It would have to treat every other WTO member around the world in the same way.
My understanding of this is that any car built in the UK that used parts manufactured in the EU would increase in price as there would be a 10% tariff applied to those parts. In turn completed cars would cost more in the EU as a 10% tariff would be applied when they are imported into the EU. The average EU tariff is pretty low (about 2.6% for non-agricultural products) - but, in some sectors, tariffs can be quite high. Under WTO rules, cars and car parts, for example, would be taxed at 10% every time they crossed the UK-EU border. And agricultural tariffs are significantly higher, rising to an average of over 35% for dairy products.
After Brexit, the UK could choose to lower tariffs or waive them altogether, in an attempt to stimulate free trade. That could mean some cheaper products coming into the country for consumers but it could also risk driving some UK producers out of business.
It's important to remember that, under the WTO's "most favoured nation" rules, the UK couldn't lower tariffs for the EU, or any specific country, alone. It would have to treat every other WTO member around the world in the same way.
So for example a MINI produced at its Oxford plant would cost more in the UK as parts are sourced from the EU (these costs could be avoided in the EU by transferring production destined for the European market to its plant in Holland) whilst BMW's built in Germany that use engines built in its Hams Hall plant in the UK would be subject to a 10% tariff on the engine as it entered the EU and then another 10% tariff on the car as it was imported into the UK.
There's an old Guardian article that illustrates this- the MINI's crankshaft apparently crosses the Channel three times before being fitted to the car, meaning that it would be subject to the 10% tariff three times.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/03/b...
It's examples like this that are the reason for so few politicians and even fewer businesspeople wanting to leave without a deal.
Can someone confirm either way please.
Notwithstanding any delays in movement or duty is damaging.
andymadmak said:
Ghibli said:
I'm basing it on the fact that FTA are better than WTO.
If you can't understand that and you think that leaving without a deal is the best option for the Uk and the reduction in the value of the pound is good for the average man on the street that's up to you.
Thanks for the PH opinion. I don't agree with it.
If you can't understand that and you think that leaving without a deal is the best option for the Uk and the reduction in the value of the pound is good for the average man on the street that's up to you.
Thanks for the PH opinion. I don't agree with it.
You keep trying to tell me what i think. All I am doing is trying to find out why you think the way you do.
An FTA will be better than WTO in most circumstances. The problem with the EU/other nations FTAs is that they will include provisions which, whilst they might be good for protecting the widget growers of Umbria, are actually bad for UK consumers of something else.
In other words, the deal between the EU and other nations is a deal designed from the outset as a compromise to benefit as many people as possible across the EU whilst recognising that some people in the EU will be disadvantaged by elements of it, whereas a deal between the UK and another country would be specific to the parties involved and is more likely to produce a more mutually beneficial outcome for both countries and their peoples.
Now, I will concede that :
1. This will not always be the case for all goods under every negotiation
2. The EU will have more 'clout' than the UK when negotiating - although whether that clout has always been used in the best interests of UK consumers is open to debate
3. Not having an FTA with the EU on day one is going to cause some problems and generate some costs. For both sides. That is not good. But it could be avoided if pragmatism and common sense (coupled with a recognition of the fact that the UK really is leaving) were the drivers in the negotiations rather than political posturing.
Anyway, lunchtime over, back to work (unless your day job is to post nonsense on the internet?)
Confirmation - France to carry out full customs and immigration checks under no deal
http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl18-009.html
All checks of goods and passengers will be restablished immediately as will SPS, veterinary checks and default safety customs declarations/checks.
Goodbye M20, goodbye M26; hello £250m lost per day to the UK economy.
http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl18-009.html
All checks of goods and passengers will be restablished immediately as will SPS, veterinary checks and default safety customs declarations/checks.
Goodbye M20, goodbye M26; hello £250m lost per day to the UK economy.
Sway said:
Yep: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/...
Note, this is "WTO transition", not "withdrawal transition"...
You are referring to the article from Feb 2017?Note, this is "WTO transition", not "withdrawal transition"...
Is this the bit you are relying on?:
"Replicating our current EU trade regime will help ensure that our transition in the WTO is as simple, technical and uncontroversial as possible. It by no means precludes the UK from taking control of its trade regime after we leave the EU, and shaping it in the interests of the British economy and the global trading system. Indeed, it is a necessary precondition for doing just that."
PurpleMoonlight said:
Sway said:
Yep: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/...
Note, this is "WTO transition", not "withdrawal transition"...
You are referring to the article from Feb 2017?Note, this is "WTO transition", not "withdrawal transition"...
Is this the bit you are relying on?:
"Replicating our current EU trade regime will help ensure that our transition in the WTO is as simple, technical and uncontroversial as possible. It by no means precludes the UK from taking control of its trade regime after we leave the EU, and shaping it in the interests of the British economy and the global trading system. Indeed, it is a necessary precondition for doing just that."
Roboraver said:
Confirmation - France to carry out full customs and immigration checks under no deal
http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl18-009.html
All checks of goods and passengers will be restablished immediately as will SPS, veterinary checks and default safety customs declarations/checks.
Goodbye M20, goodbye M26; hello £250m lost per day to the UK economy.
Well that is just not fair, without us they would etc etc http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl18-009.html
All checks of goods and passengers will be restablished immediately as will SPS, veterinary checks and default safety customs declarations/checks.
Goodbye M20, goodbye M26; hello £250m lost per day to the UK economy.
Nickgnome said:
Alfa numeric said:
andymadmak said:
Ghibli said:
andymadmak said:
OK, so we can trade under WTO. Now what costs would be involved in that trade that we currently do not have to pay?
You can express them as a % of the value if that makes it easier for you
We would have tarriffs with the EU and if we lose our trade agreements we will have tarriffs with those countries.You can express them as a % of the value if that makes it easier for you
Perhaps you could look up all the agreements and tarriffs and let me know.
What's the problem? The paperwork? The tariffs? Come on now Ghibli, you surely have to have a reason for objecting to a trading system that most of the world make use of?
One example of the change:
BBC article said:
Every WTO member has a list of tariffs (taxes on imports of goods) and quotas (limits on the number of goods) that they apply to other countries. These are known as their WTO schedules.
The average EU tariff is pretty low (about 2.6% for non-agricultural products) - but, in some sectors, tariffs can be quite high. Under WTO rules, cars and car parts, for example, would be taxed at 10% every time they crossed the UK-EU border. And agricultural tariffs are significantly higher, rising to an average of over 35% for dairy products.
After Brexit, the UK could choose to lower tariffs or waive them altogether, in an attempt to stimulate free trade. That could mean some cheaper products coming into the country for consumers but it could also risk driving some UK producers out of business.
It's important to remember that, under the WTO's "most favoured nation" rules, the UK couldn't lower tariffs for the EU, or any specific country, alone. It would have to treat every other WTO member around the world in the same way.
My understanding of this is that any car built in the UK that used parts manufactured in the EU would increase in price as there would be a 10% tariff applied to those parts. In turn completed cars would cost more in the EU as a 10% tariff would be applied when they are imported into the EU. The average EU tariff is pretty low (about 2.6% for non-agricultural products) - but, in some sectors, tariffs can be quite high. Under WTO rules, cars and car parts, for example, would be taxed at 10% every time they crossed the UK-EU border. And agricultural tariffs are significantly higher, rising to an average of over 35% for dairy products.
After Brexit, the UK could choose to lower tariffs or waive them altogether, in an attempt to stimulate free trade. That could mean some cheaper products coming into the country for consumers but it could also risk driving some UK producers out of business.
It's important to remember that, under the WTO's "most favoured nation" rules, the UK couldn't lower tariffs for the EU, or any specific country, alone. It would have to treat every other WTO member around the world in the same way.
So for example a MINI produced at its Oxford plant would cost more in the UK as parts are sourced from the EU (these costs could be avoided in the EU by transferring production destined for the European market to its plant in Holland) whilst BMW's built in Germany that use engines built in its Hams Hall plant in the UK would be subject to a 10% tariff on the engine as it entered the EU and then another 10% tariff on the car as it was imported into the UK.
There's an old Guardian article that illustrates this- the MINI's crankshaft apparently crosses the Channel three times before being fitted to the car, meaning that it would be subject to the 10% tariff three times.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/03/b...
It's examples like this that are the reason for so few politicians and even fewer businesspeople wanting to leave without a deal.
Can someone confirm either way please.
Notwithstanding any delays in movement or duty is damaging.
Claim Inward Processing Relief at (or rather prior, under pre-clearance) point of entry of the component. This requires a level of traceability to confirm to HMRC that the component was indeed exported back out.
Retrospective relief, to reclaim the tariffs paid upon point of entry of the component.
Sway said:
Nickgnome said:
Alfa numeric said:
andymadmak said:
Ghibli said:
andymadmak said:
OK, so we can trade under WTO. Now what costs would be involved in that trade that we currently do not have to pay?
You can express them as a % of the value if that makes it easier for you
We would have tarriffs with the EU and if we lose our trade agreements we will have tarriffs with those countries.You can express them as a % of the value if that makes it easier for you
Perhaps you could look up all the agreements and tarriffs and let me know.
What's the problem? The paperwork? The tariffs? Come on now Ghibli, you surely have to have a reason for objecting to a trading system that most of the world make use of?
One example of the change:
BBC article said:
Every WTO member has a list of tariffs (taxes on imports of goods) and quotas (limits on the number of goods) that they apply to other countries. These are known as their WTO schedules.
The average EU tariff is pretty low (about 2.6% for non-agricultural products) - but, in some sectors, tariffs can be quite high. Under WTO rules, cars and car parts, for example, would be taxed at 10% every time they crossed the UK-EU border. And agricultural tariffs are significantly higher, rising to an average of over 35% for dairy products.
After Brexit, the UK could choose to lower tariffs or waive them altogether, in an attempt to stimulate free trade. That could mean some cheaper products coming into the country for consumers but it could also risk driving some UK producers out of business.
It's important to remember that, under the WTO's "most favoured nation" rules, the UK couldn't lower tariffs for the EU, or any specific country, alone. It would have to treat every other WTO member around the world in the same way.
My understanding of this is that any car built in the UK that used parts manufactured in the EU would increase in price as there would be a 10% tariff applied to those parts. In turn completed cars would cost more in the EU as a 10% tariff would be applied when they are imported into the EU. The average EU tariff is pretty low (about 2.6% for non-agricultural products) - but, in some sectors, tariffs can be quite high. Under WTO rules, cars and car parts, for example, would be taxed at 10% every time they crossed the UK-EU border. And agricultural tariffs are significantly higher, rising to an average of over 35% for dairy products.
After Brexit, the UK could choose to lower tariffs or waive them altogether, in an attempt to stimulate free trade. That could mean some cheaper products coming into the country for consumers but it could also risk driving some UK producers out of business.
It's important to remember that, under the WTO's "most favoured nation" rules, the UK couldn't lower tariffs for the EU, or any specific country, alone. It would have to treat every other WTO member around the world in the same way.
So for example a MINI produced at its Oxford plant would cost more in the UK as parts are sourced from the EU (these costs could be avoided in the EU by transferring production destined for the European market to its plant in Holland) whilst BMW's built in Germany that use engines built in its Hams Hall plant in the UK would be subject to a 10% tariff on the engine as it entered the EU and then another 10% tariff on the car as it was imported into the UK.
There's an old Guardian article that illustrates this- the MINI's crankshaft apparently crosses the Channel three times before being fitted to the car, meaning that it would be subject to the 10% tariff three times.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/03/b...
It's examples like this that are the reason for so few politicians and even fewer businesspeople wanting to leave without a deal.
Can someone confirm either way please.
Notwithstanding any delays in movement or duty is damaging.
Claim Inward Processing Relief at (or rather prior, under pre-clearance) point of entry of the component. This requires a level of traceability to confirm to HMRC that the component was indeed exported back out.
Retrospective relief, to reclaim the tariffs paid upon point of entry of the component.
Roboraver said:
Confirmation - France to carry out full customs and immigration checks under no deal
http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl18-009.html
All checks of goods and passengers will be restablished immediately as will SPS, veterinary checks and default safety customs declarations/checks.
Goodbye M20, goodbye M26; hello £250m lost per day to the UK economy.
Goodbye shipping goods to the rest of Europe through France?http://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl18-009.html
All checks of goods and passengers will be restablished immediately as will SPS, veterinary checks and default safety customs declarations/checks.
Goodbye M20, goodbye M26; hello £250m lost per day to the UK economy.
For the sake of clarity, WTO does present some serious difficulties - however, I don't understand the mentality of people who then keep on doing the difficult thing rather than changing their behaviour. Being prepared for No Deal isn't just a slogan - it's pretty serious stuff, but we're in the hands of the negotiators so there is very little choice. Those pining for 'the old days' need to park their nostalgia and get on with it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff