Discussion
wisbech said:
And? None of the US FTA have what the article refers to - recognition of each other’s regulations and regulators including services. If you want to sell a car to US, it has to meet US regulations, FTA or not.
Within the US for example, insurance is a state matter. You cannot buy car or health insurance from a Georgia regulated company if you are resident in Idaho.
So what. What's wrong with the USA insisting its imports meet their regulations?Within the US for example, insurance is a state matter. You cannot buy car or health insurance from a Georgia regulated company if you are resident in Idaho.
You are just another of the many negative voices that see no benefit of being able to do bespoke bilateral trade deals.
Nothing. Which is why the Hannan paper is bulls
t because it supposes the US will be OK to accept UK regulations
I am sure we will have an FTA with the US, but it will be similar to say the Singapore one. Which definitely doesn’t have mutual recognition of regulations, and a reasonable number of carve outs (Singapore airlines can’t fly domestically in the US for example, and if they sell tickets in the US to fly elsewhere they must comply to US regulations, despite Singapore regulations being pretty robust)
Not sure why pointing out the flaws in the paper is negative. There is no point UK negotiators even trying for what is proposed, given US domestic politics and the federal system over there
Yes, I know that it has some Us think tanks attached to it, but as they can’t even get domestic regulatory alignment and mutual recognition (see my point about insurance) international is obviously off the cards
t because it supposes the US will be OK to accept UK regulations I am sure we will have an FTA with the US, but it will be similar to say the Singapore one. Which definitely doesn’t have mutual recognition of regulations, and a reasonable number of carve outs (Singapore airlines can’t fly domestically in the US for example, and if they sell tickets in the US to fly elsewhere they must comply to US regulations, despite Singapore regulations being pretty robust)
Not sure why pointing out the flaws in the paper is negative. There is no point UK negotiators even trying for what is proposed, given US domestic politics and the federal system over there
Yes, I know that it has some Us think tanks attached to it, but as they can’t even get domestic regulatory alignment and mutual recognition (see my point about insurance) international is obviously off the cards
Edited by wisbech on Tuesday 25th September 05:01
Tuna said:
jjlynn27 said:
I remember Azevedo (dir-gen of WTO) saying that there would be significant costs associated with going down WTO route, not savings.
Savings of 10% on food bill, by dropping tariffs on things like 'oranges, coffee, chocolate' doesn't seem plausible to me, far from it. Hence asking for the source.
If you don't have one that's ok too.
I'll see if I can find it. Do you have a link for Azevedo's comments?Savings of 10% on food bill, by dropping tariffs on things like 'oranges, coffee, chocolate' doesn't seem plausible to me, far from it. Hence asking for the source.
If you don't have one that's ok too.
https://www.ft.com/content/745d0ea2-222d-11e6-9d4d...
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-wto/b...
Links on WTO that I found interesting.
https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/2018/08/24...
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-09...
Legal angle;
https://www.monckton.com/brexit-mean-uk-wto/
Any luck with yours?
PurpleMoonlight said:
Despite what Rees-Mogg may want, the UK has already proposed EU matching tariffs to the WTO.
Not correct.Both the EU and UK sent a joint request to the WTO to split their agreed quota agreement based on real use consumption for the current quota agreements in place, so as to not affect the exports of our trading partners when UK leaves.
The initial tariff rates the UK will apply to 3rd countries has not yet been submitted.
wisbech said:
Nothing. Which is why the Hannan paper is bullst because it supposes the US will be OK to accept UK regulations
I am sure we will have an FTA with the US, but it will be similar to say the Singapore one. Which definitely doesn’t have mutual recognition of regulations, and a reasonable number of carve outs (Singapore airlines can’t fly domestically in the US for example, and if they sell tickets in the US to fly elsewhere they must comply to US regulations, despite Singapore regulations being pretty robust)
Not sure why pointing out the flaws in the paper is negative. There is no point UK negotiators even trying for what is proposed, given US domestic politics and the federal system over there
Yes, I know that it has some Us think tanks attached to it, but as they can’t even get domestic regulatory alignment and mutual recognition (see my point about insurance) international is obviously off the cards
It most likely will follow the same format as the EU Canada FTA where there are different rules for different provinces, or in the case of the USA, states. Read the EU Canada FTA, its got a huge section on this.t because it supposes the US will be OK to accept UK regulations I am sure we will have an FTA with the US, but it will be similar to say the Singapore one. Which definitely doesn’t have mutual recognition of regulations, and a reasonable number of carve outs (Singapore airlines can’t fly domestically in the US for example, and if they sell tickets in the US to fly elsewhere they must comply to US regulations, despite Singapore regulations being pretty robust)
Not sure why pointing out the flaws in the paper is negative. There is no point UK negotiators even trying for what is proposed, given US domestic politics and the federal system over there
Yes, I know that it has some Us think tanks attached to it, but as they can’t even get domestic regulatory alignment and mutual recognition (see my point about insurance) international is obviously off the cards
Edited by wisbech on Tuesday 25th September 05:01
Whats wrong with that? It still offers improved terms which will drive trade in both directions.
jsf said:
It most likely will follow the same format as the EU Canada FTA where there are different rules for different provinces, or in the case of the USA, states. Read the EU Canada FTA, its got a huge section on this.
Whats wrong with that? It still offers improved terms which will drive trade in both directions.
Nothing - but that is different to what the referenced paper described. Which suggests Hannon didn't have much of a clue when he proposed an FTA based on mutual recognition of regulations and qualifications. As I said, I am sure that we will end up with an FTA, but one based on reality, not wishful thinking. Whats wrong with that? It still offers improved terms which will drive trade in both directions.
jsf said:
It most likely will follow the same format as the EU Canada FTA where there are different rules for different provinces, or in the case of the USA, states. Read the EU Canada FTA, its got a huge section on this.
Whats wrong with that? It still offers improved terms which will drive trade in both directions.
You're clearly not familiar with US FTA's.Whats wrong with that? It still offers improved terms which will drive trade in both directions.
US FTA's serve two purposes,
1. To protect US industries.
2. To foist US laws onto other nations rich/powerful enough not to require aid (which can be withdrawn until they agree to have US laws foisted on them).
Australia's FTA with the US and the recently neutered TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) are prime examples. The US maintains tariffs against several key exports by Australia, notably in the Agri sector (which is pretty big in as far as Australian exports go) but Australia is not permitted to add tariffs against US goods. Australia also had several US laws, notably their copyright laws, foisted onto Australians with no input or consent from Australians. The TPP was set to do the same thing to a dozen pacific nations until Trump pulled out (now it's just a watered down trade treaty between Australia, Japan and a few others).
Then Prime Minister, John Howard was so desperate to be bum buddies with then US president George W Bush that he would have given away the entire country.
A US FTA never works in two directions.
captain_cynic said:
You're clearly not familiar with US FTA's.
US FTA's serve two purposes,
1. To protect US industries.
2. To foist US laws onto other nations rich/powerful enough not to require aid (which can be withdrawn until they agree to have US laws foisted on them).
Australia's FTA with the US and the recently neutered TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) are prime examples. The US maintains tariffs against several key exports by Australia, notably in the Agri sector (which is pretty big in as far as Australian exports go) but Australia is not permitted to add tariffs against US goods. Australia also had several US laws, notably their copyright laws, foisted onto Australians with no input or consent from Australians. The TPP was set to do the same thing to a dozen pacific nations until Trump pulled out (now it's just a watered down trade treaty between Australia, Japan and a few others).
Then Prime Minister, John Howard was so desperate to be bum buddies with then US president George W Bush that he would have given away the entire country.
A US FTA never works in two directions.
Nafta seems to prove your point wrong, hence trumps hissy fit about it.US FTA's serve two purposes,
1. To protect US industries.
2. To foist US laws onto other nations rich/powerful enough not to require aid (which can be withdrawn until they agree to have US laws foisted on them).
Australia's FTA with the US and the recently neutered TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) are prime examples. The US maintains tariffs against several key exports by Australia, notably in the Agri sector (which is pretty big in as far as Australian exports go) but Australia is not permitted to add tariffs against US goods. Australia also had several US laws, notably their copyright laws, foisted onto Australians with no input or consent from Australians. The TPP was set to do the same thing to a dozen pacific nations until Trump pulled out (now it's just a watered down trade treaty between Australia, Japan and a few others).
Then Prime Minister, John Howard was so desperate to be bum buddies with then US president George W Bush that he would have given away the entire country.
A US FTA never works in two directions.
wisbech said:
Nothing - but that is different to what the referenced paper described. Which suggests Hannon didn't have much of a clue when he proposed an FTA based on mutual recognition of regulations and qualifications. As I said, I am sure that we will end up with an FTA, but one based on reality, not wishful thinking.
Hannan didnt propose anything in this paper. Its the output of several US and UK think tanks.jsf said:
Not correct.
Both the EU and UK sent a joint request to the WTO to split their agreed quota agreement based on real use consumption for the current quota agreements in place, so as to not affect the exports of our trading partners when UK leaves.
The initial tariff rates the UK will apply to 3rd countries has not yet been submitted.
Both the EU and UK sent a joint request to the WTO to split their agreed quota agreement based on real use consumption for the current quota agreements in place, so as to not affect the exports of our trading partners when UK leaves.
The initial tariff rates the UK will apply to 3rd countries has not yet been submitted.
Yes it has.
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news18_e/mark_2...
The market access for goods schedule includes proposed tariffs.
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/markacc_e/mar...
Further confirmation:
https://trade-knowledge.net/commentary/the-uk-subm...
That does not say the UK rates match the EU rates. They are currently confidential.
Any rates set at the point of leaving will also depend on the terms of withdrawal, if there is a transition deal then i would expect the areas covered by the transition deal would be aligned for that period.
Any rates set at the point of leaving will also depend on the terms of withdrawal, if there is a transition deal then i would expect the areas covered by the transition deal would be aligned for that period.
jsf said:
That does not say the UK rates match the EU rates. They are currently confidential.
Any rates set at the point of leaving will also depend on the terms of withdrawal, if there is a transition deal then i would expect the areas covered by the transition deal would be aligned for that period.
From the first link:Any rates set at the point of leaving will also depend on the terms of withdrawal, if there is a transition deal then i would expect the areas covered by the transition deal would be aligned for that period.
"The United Kingdom considers this notification to constitute a rectification of its concessions under the WTO, on the grounds that the schedule replicates the concessions and commitments currently applicable to the UK as an EU member. "
ou sont les biscuits said:
DrDeAtH said:
She's just been on C4 news... I wish she'd stop fking talking and breathing..
That was a total car crash. Deluded and delusional.king talking and breathing..National interest, my backside.
I was pleased that Labour and Corbyn(who put himself across quite well) are finally erring more towards the option of staying in.
Ruth Davidson comes across very well.
PurpleMoonlight said:
From the first link:
"The United Kingdom considers this notification to constitute a rectification of its concessions under the WTO, on the grounds that the schedule replicates the concessions and commitments currently applicable to the UK as an EU member. "
That's all related to the current quotas agreements."The United Kingdom considers this notification to constitute a rectification of its concessions under the WTO, on the grounds that the schedule replicates the concessions and commitments currently applicable to the UK as an EU member. "
The joint letter to the WTO is found at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/joint...
jsf said:
That's all related to the current quotas agreements.
The joint letter to the WTO is found at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/joint...
Stop digging.The joint letter to the WTO is found at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/joint...
Look at the dates, that's a different notification.
Tuna said:
Mario149 said:
Tuna said:
Mario149 said:
I don't think anyone is saying we can't survive. It's not going to be armageddon, we're not totally insane as a country/gov. But when you have people like JRM championing a no-deal economic model as "we'll be fine" which involves unanimously dropping all our tariffs and decimating entire industries,
I think you've fundamentally misunderstood what has been said about 'no deal'.WTO - the no-deal backdrop neither specifies a fixed set of tariffs, nor zero tariffs. It merely requires that for a given type of good, the same tariff is applied to all imports, regardless of the country of origin. WTO specifies maximum tariffs (to prevent protectionist measures), but compliant nations are free to set whatever levels they feel suitable.
Note again, that WTO allows us to drop tariffs completely on goods that we don't produce locally - such as oranges, coffee, chocolate - whilst maintaining tariffs on other items - such as steel or cars. Dropping tariffs on foodstuffs that are not natively grown would potentially save the average consumer 10% on their food bill without affecting government revenue or 'decimating industries'. It would also benefit third world countries such as Africa which are currently frozen out of the European markets by protectionist tariffs demanded by the mediterranean countries.
Okay, so assuming you are correct in all that (I assume you have no reason to lie) why is it that only some ERG members and Patrick Minford think that No Deal is a goer? If it was so obviously beneficial and whatever plan they have is genuinely going to produce the £1.1 trillion benefit in 15 years, why isn't it gaining any traction? And why are we supposed to listen to a minority of experts against a massive majority who say otherwise, both inside and outside of government? Made all the more strange by the fact that we've been told by ERG-types that they had enough of experts, so why are they listening to Minford and ther Economists for Free Trade at all?
I mean, even a cursory glance of the report (https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/A-World-Trade-Deal-The-Complete-Guide-Final-Upload.pdf) yields total b
ks:report said:
15. Wouldn’t WTO rules inevitably lead to tariff and other trade barriers in goods trade between the
EU and the UK thereby leading to a big reduction in our trade with the EU?
No, not on a long-term basis.
As a starting point, the economically optimal trade strategy in most circumstances for the UK would
be to eliminate all tariff and non-tariff barriers unilaterally with respect to all our trading partners -
including the EU. However, whether or not such circumstances hold today, political interests driven
by old-fashioned mercantilism and protectionist producers used to forty years of EU protectionism
at the expense of consumers, makes implementing such a policy politically difficult.
Consequently, the UK’s route to global free trade is likely to be primarily through agreeing FTAs
with other countries, perhaps coupled with unilateral actions where we decide it is in our interests to
take them.
So basically, depending on how you read it i.e. whether it's a starting point, an enabler or an end goal we're supposed to drop all our tariffs as I said above, and also non-tariff barriers (like product standards).EU and the UK thereby leading to a big reduction in our trade with the EU?
No, not on a long-term basis.
As a starting point, the economically optimal trade strategy in most circumstances for the UK would
be to eliminate all tariff and non-tariff barriers unilaterally with respect to all our trading partners -
including the EU. However, whether or not such circumstances hold today, political interests driven
by old-fashioned mercantilism and protectionist producers used to forty years of EU protectionism
at the expense of consumers, makes implementing such a policy politically difficult.
Consequently, the UK’s route to global free trade is likely to be primarily through agreeing FTAs
with other countries, perhaps coupled with unilateral actions where we decide it is in our interests to
take them.
Their plan is a farce, only marginally worse that what TM is currently running. JRM and his types don't appear to be able to produce anything credible that can withstand scrutiny.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff