How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
///ajd said:
The original report was 200+ pages, so the 36 pager appears different and more recent.
The treasury report is worth another look if you want to know what WTO means. It is focussed mainly looking at the effects once we actually leave.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
It also explains an option where we stay in the EEA and have Single Market access similar to what we have at the moment, like Norway. Funny that, I thought it was absolutely certain we were leaving the Single Market, and here is an official treasury report, commissioned by Osbourne, that says staying in like Norway is one of the main options open to us when we leave.
Some of it was bang on:
A common feature of many of the analyses in Box 3.D is a sharp sterling exchange rate depreciation. This would put upward pressure on inflation in the short term, especially in areas where there is a high import content, such as household goods.
It is interesting that it is actually quite measured in its prediction of what would happen immediately after a vote, and focuses on the impact of uncertainty - doesn't mention godzilla once, contrary to what you might think reading here. Certainly the fact that car industry investment is the lowest since records began is consistent with this report.
So perhaps you can explain why relying on WTO tariffs would have serious effects on food prices. The treasury report is worth another look if you want to know what WTO means. It is focussed mainly looking at the effects once we actually leave.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
It also explains an option where we stay in the EEA and have Single Market access similar to what we have at the moment, like Norway. Funny that, I thought it was absolutely certain we were leaving the Single Market, and here is an official treasury report, commissioned by Osbourne, that says staying in like Norway is one of the main options open to us when we leave.
Some of it was bang on:
A common feature of many of the analyses in Box 3.D is a sharp sterling exchange rate depreciation. This would put upward pressure on inflation in the short term, especially in areas where there is a high import content, such as household goods.
It is interesting that it is actually quite measured in its prediction of what would happen immediately after a vote, and focuses on the impact of uncertainty - doesn't mention godzilla once, contrary to what you might think reading here. Certainly the fact that car industry investment is the lowest since records began is consistent with this report.
///ajd said:
Sway said:
///ajd said:
jsf said:
babatunde said:
jsf said:
That would be the British public. Why people think we need a foreign body that has no skin in the game to protect us is beyond me, it's bonkers. If we don't like the bunch doing horrific things, we chuck them out.
Mainland Europe has a very poor record in this respect, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Salazar to name just 4 in the last century.
Brexit, because Hitler, is the most Godwin argument ever, pray tell which recess of your mind thinks that is a good negotiating pointMainland Europe has a very poor record in this respect, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Salazar to name just 4 in the last century.
"If we don't like the bunch doing horrific things, we chuck them out. Mainland Europe has a very poor record in this respect, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Salazar to name just 4 in the last century."
Who is the "bunch" doing horrific things? Who are you proposing to "chuck out"?
It sounds like more than an individual, more like a defined group.
Hitler had a record for getting rid of a "bunch" he persuaded his nation were doing "horrific things" and who were the source of the ills of Germany.
Or were you suggesting Germany should have "chucked out" Hitler? Chucked out to where? He was elected by the people of course. Are you suggesting Germany should have somehow ignored the "democratic will of the people" in getting rid of Hitler? Perhaps had another vote? He made that quite tricky in 1933 of course; fancy that, a government bring in an act to sweep away democracy & parliamentary powers (Great Repeal Bill anyone?).
The assertion was that we needed the ECJ to control our government, otherwise there would be no-one to keep them in check.
I pointed out our electorate, as did jsf - then he pointed out that Europe doesn't have a great deal of success in preventing rogue governments...
king with human rights - which was apparently the reason why the original poster wanted the ECJ to provide oversight. Dr Jekyll said:
///ajd said:
Do you not follow the point about how it makes securing a trade deal with non-EU countries more difficult?
Can you actually follow that argument, whether you agree with it or not?
Of course I follow it. The point is that if we reduce or even remove tariffs ourselves we get the benefit without waiting for a trade deal. Can you actually follow that argument, whether you agree with it or not?
Consumers in the UK may benefit if they get goods tariff free.
But our exporters may not if they are still paying tariffs into the country that can now import tariff free.
Hence our exporters will struggle, and they create GDP/tax and many of our population work for them. Cheaper goods means little if you have no job, and the govt has less tax to spend on services.
Do you understand why it would be harder to get the countries concerned to lower their tariffs applying to our goods?
///ajd said:
Tuna said:
///ajd said:
There has been another one, under May's time.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brex...
It says "relying on WTO tariffs would have serious consequences for companies, jobs and food prices".
I thought it was fairly well established that the Independent were talking about the original document that Osborne's discredited report was based on? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brex...
It says "relying on WTO tariffs would have serious consequences for companies, jobs and food prices".
The Independent said:
The 36-page report uses language far stronger than that employed in the Treasury's published analysis of Brexit's long-term impact on the economy.
Osborne asked for a 'doom and gloom' report, and then rephrased it to try and make it look like balanced analysis. It wasn't when he commissioned it, it still wasn't when the Independent dragged it up again. I'm slightly suspicious that the name of that newspaper is misleading.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCwoVi_Fu-Y
Sway said:
The government, if it goes rogue and starts fking with human rights - which was apparently the reason why the original poster wanted the ECJ to provide oversight.
Ah, so if this government goes rogue and starts messing with human rights (e.g. massively curtailing the rights of brits living in the EU), and negotiates a terrible brexit deal that would see the country economically ruined - we can chuck them out? king with human rights - which was apparently the reason why the original poster wanted the ECJ to provide oversight. Shall we have another vote then to decide - is that what the UK is "better" than the EU at?
don'tbesilly said:
It just highlights that Osborne was a liar, and the treasury report wasn't worth the paper it was written on, hence it being buried in the archives
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCwoVi_Fu-Y
Ah, so Osbourne was lying about leaving the Single Market now? Make your mind up, he and Cameron were the only voices you had saying we would definitely leave the SM not so long ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCwoVi_Fu-Y
All very clear isn't it. Knew what you voted for!
Can you pick out anything in the treasury report that isn't true, or at least a not unreasonable prediction given the uncertainty?
///ajd said:
Sway said:
The government, if it goes rogue and starts fking with human rights - which was apparently the reason why the original poster wanted the ECJ to provide oversight.
Ah, so if this government goes rogue and starts messing with human rights (e.g. massively curtailing the rights of brits living in the EU), and negotiates a terrible brexit deal that would see the country economically ruined - we can chuck them out? king with human rights - which was apparently the reason why the original poster wanted the ECJ to provide oversight. ///ajd said:
Dr Jekyll said:
///ajd said:
Do you not follow the point about how it makes securing a trade deal with non-EU countries more difficult?
Can you actually follow that argument, whether you agree with it or not?
Of course I follow it. The point is that if we reduce or even remove tariffs ourselves we get the benefit without waiting for a trade deal. Can you actually follow that argument, whether you agree with it or not?
Consumers in the UK may benefit if they get goods tariff free.
///ajd said:
But our exporters may not if they are still paying tariffs into the country that can now import tariff free.
Our exporters don't pay tariffs, only importers pay tariffs. How is a foreign country importing tariff free bad for exports?
There is no way that lifting import tariffs would cause exporters to struggle.
Our exporters don't pay tariffs, only importers pay tariffs. How is a foreign country importing tariff free bad for exports?
///ajd said:
Hence our exporters will struggle, and they create GDP/tax and many of our population work for them. Cheaper goods means little if you have no job, and the govt has less tax to spend on services.
Do you understand why it would be harder to get the countries concerned to lower their tariffs applying to our goods?
Of course I understand why charging tariffs ourselves might be a possible negotiating ploy. But the point is it's a very weak one, and the advantages of reducing tariffs unilaterally more than make up for it. We could always threaten to introduce tariffs on certain products if some trading partners get troublesome.Do you understand why it would be harder to get the countries concerned to lower their tariffs applying to our goods?
There is no way that lifting import tariffs would cause exporters to struggle.
Dr Jekyll said:
///ajd said:
The original report was 200+ pages, so the 36 pager appears different and more recent.
The treasury report is worth another look if you want to know what WTO means. It is focussed mainly looking at the effects once we actually leave.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
It also explains an option where we stay in the EEA and have Single Market access similar to what we have at the moment, like Norway. Funny that, I thought it was absolutely certain we were leaving the Single Market, and here is an official treasury report, commissioned by Osbourne, that says staying in like Norway is one of the main options open to us when we leave.
Some of it was bang on:
A common feature of many of the analyses in Box 3.D is a sharp sterling exchange rate depreciation. This would put upward pressure on inflation in the short term, especially in areas where there is a high import content, such as household goods.
It is interesting that it is actually quite measured in its prediction of what would happen immediately after a vote, and focuses on the impact of uncertainty - doesn't mention godzilla once, contrary to what you might think reading here. Certainly the fact that car industry investment is the lowest since records began is consistent with this report.
So perhaps you can explain why relying on WTO tariffs would have serious effects on food prices. The treasury report is worth another look if you want to know what WTO means. It is focussed mainly looking at the effects once we actually leave.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
It also explains an option where we stay in the EEA and have Single Market access similar to what we have at the moment, like Norway. Funny that, I thought it was absolutely certain we were leaving the Single Market, and here is an official treasury report, commissioned by Osbourne, that says staying in like Norway is one of the main options open to us when we leave.
Some of it was bang on:
A common feature of many of the analyses in Box 3.D is a sharp sterling exchange rate depreciation. This would put upward pressure on inflation in the short term, especially in areas where there is a high import content, such as household goods.
It is interesting that it is actually quite measured in its prediction of what would happen immediately after a vote, and focuses on the impact of uncertainty - doesn't mention godzilla once, contrary to what you might think reading here. Certainly the fact that car industry investment is the lowest since records began is consistent with this report.
And if you just removed them, good luck with those trade deals when you've would have removed your main playing card.
And what immediate impact would that have on our export businesses, lots of new lower cost imports, whilst they don't have the same access to that market?
Sway said:
Indeed. We had an election just a little while ago, where if voters wanted to prevent the government "messing with human rights (e.g. massively curtailing the rights of brits living in the EU), and negotiates a terrible brexit deal that would see the country economically ruined" they could have - other options were available, most voters chose not to.
They were still promising the moon on a stick with no detail pre election. Shall we decide whether they've done what they promised when the deal is finished, and chuck them and their deal out if we wish?
///ajd said:
Sway said:
Indeed. We had an election just a little while ago, where if voters wanted to prevent the government "messing with human rights (e.g. massively curtailing the rights of brits living in the EU), and negotiates a terrible brexit deal that would see the country economically ruined" they could have - other options were available, most voters chose not to.
They were still promising the moon on a stick with no detail pre election. Shall we decide whether they've done what they promised when the deal is finished, and chuck them and their deal out if we wish?
We are leaving the EU either with a deal or without.
The referendum was "Leave or Remain in the EU"
Any attempt to keep us in the EU is undemocratic.
What part of that do you not understand?
We voted. Your preferred choice lost. Time to move forward fella - and make it work for all of us.
Once we leave the EU - vote for whichever political party/ candidate you wish.
That is the beauty of our democracy - you can sack the lot of them.
You can't do that with the EU presidents etc.
As to why you are so emotionally attached to us backtracking to accept unelected presidents etc - I just don't get.
Do you have an issue with democracy?
Dr Jekyll said:
///ajd said:
Dr Jekyll said:
///ajd said:
Do you not follow the point about how it makes securing a trade deal with non-EU countries more difficult?
Can you actually follow that argument, whether you agree with it or not?
Of course I follow it. The point is that if we reduce or even remove tariffs ourselves we get the benefit without waiting for a trade deal. Can you actually follow that argument, whether you agree with it or not?
Consumers in the UK may benefit if they get goods tariff free.
///ajd said:
But our exporters may not if they are still paying tariffs into the country that can now import tariff free.
Our exporters don't pay tariffs, only importers pay tariffs. How is a foreign country importing tariff free bad for exports?
There is no way that lifting import tariffs would cause exporters to struggle.
What about e.g. lamb farmers? Just one example.Our exporters don't pay tariffs, only importers pay tariffs. How is a foreign country importing tariff free bad for exports?
///ajd said:
Hence our exporters will struggle, and they create GDP/tax and many of our population work for them. Cheaper goods means little if you have no job, and the govt has less tax to spend on services.
Do you understand why it would be harder to get the countries concerned to lower their tariffs applying to our goods?
Of course I understand why charging tariffs ourselves might be a possible negotiating ploy. But the point is it's a very weak one, and the advantages of reducing tariffs unilaterally more than make up for it. We could always threaten to introduce tariffs on certain products if some trading partners get troublesome.Do you understand why it would be harder to get the countries concerned to lower their tariffs applying to our goods?
There is no way that lifting import tariffs would cause exporters to struggle.
Those products you raise tariffs on - how many?
Wouldn't that make goods from EU more expensive than they are now?
Which import tariffs are our exporters looking to scrap anyway? Is there a list?
And we can't use it to get around EU tariffs - if our exporter uses new "nil tariff" parts in something, there maybe repercussions for EU exports/trade.
Troubleatmill said:
///ajd said:
Sway said:
Indeed. We had an election just a little while ago, where if voters wanted to prevent the government "messing with human rights (e.g. massively curtailing the rights of brits living in the EU), and negotiates a terrible brexit deal that would see the country economically ruined" they could have - other options were available, most voters chose not to.
They were still promising the moon on a stick with no detail pre election. Shall we decide whether they've done what they promised when the deal is finished, and chuck them and their deal out if we wish?
We are leaving the EU either with a deal or without.
The referendum was "Leave or Remain in the EU"
Any attempt to keep us in the EU is undemocratic.
What part of that do you not understand?
We voted. Your preferred choice lost. Time to move forward fella - and make it work for all of us.
Once we leave the EU - vote for whichever political party/ candidate you wish.
That is the beauty of our democracy - you can sack the lot of them.
You can't do that with the EU presidents etc.
As to why you are so emotionally attached to us backtracking to accept unelected presidents etc - I just don't get.
Do you have an issue with democracy?
Not at all. But you do it seems.
By your standards, the people voted for Hitler, and they should have stuck with him as that was the will of the people.
So funny to see selective democracy at play.
///ajd said:
Sway said:
Indeed. We had an election just a little while ago, where if voters wanted to prevent the government "messing with human rights (e.g. massively curtailing the rights of brits living in the EU), and negotiates a terrible brexit deal that would see the country economically ruined" they could have - other options were available, most voters chose not to.
They were still promising the moon on a stick with no detail pre election. Shall we decide whether they've done what they promised when the deal is finished, and chuck them and their deal out if we wish?
Troubleatmill said:
No.
We are leaving the EU either with a deal or without.
The referendum was "Leave or Remain in the EU"
Any attempt to keep us in the EU is undemocratic.
What part of that do you not understand?
We voted. Your preferred choice lost. Time to move forward fella - and make it work for all of us.
Once we leave the EU - vote for whichever political party/ candidate you wish.
That is the beauty of our democracy - you can sack the lot of them.
You can't do that with the EU presidents etc.
As to why you are so emotionally attached to us backtracking to accept unelected presidents etc - I just don't get.
Do you have an issue with democracy?
Its basically a cult.We are leaving the EU either with a deal or without.
The referendum was "Leave or Remain in the EU"
Any attempt to keep us in the EU is undemocratic.
What part of that do you not understand?
We voted. Your preferred choice lost. Time to move forward fella - and make it work for all of us.
Once we leave the EU - vote for whichever political party/ candidate you wish.
That is the beauty of our democracy - you can sack the lot of them.
You can't do that with the EU presidents etc.
As to why you are so emotionally attached to us backtracking to accept unelected presidents etc - I just don't get.
Do you have an issue with democracy?
Some people see the light and get out,some don't.
///ajd said:
Well it would if you allowed the tariffs to apply, wouldn't it
This is just the point, there is no such thing as WTO tariffs, only WTO maximum permissible tariffs.///ajd said:
And if you just removed them, good luck with those trade deals when you've would have removed your main playing card.
And what immediate impact would that have on our export businesses, lots of new lower cost imports, whilst they don't have the same access to that market?
That would be great for exporters, cheaper raw materials, cheaper components, and the export market couldn't raise tariffs above WTO limits. Getting the export market to lift their tariffs would be better still, but we could still charge tariffs some tariffs as a negotiaing ploy. Or threaten to introduce them. Instead of saying 'we'll lift tariffs if you do' we could say 'we'll impose tariffs on the main products you export to us unless you sign an FTA'.And what immediate impact would that have on our export businesses, lots of new lower cost imports, whilst they don't have the same access to that market?
Do you understand that free trade is good? If not, what was the original point of the EEC?
///ajd said:
Ha ha!
Not at all. But you do it seems.
By your standards, the people voted for Hitler, and they should have stuck with him as that was the will of the people.
So funny to see selective democracy at play.
Tell me how you get rid of the 5 EU Presidents again? Not at all. But you do it seems.
By your standards, the people voted for Hitler, and they should have stuck with him as that was the will of the people.
So funny to see selective democracy at play.
Democracy is - we were asked to "Leave or Remain" - We leave.
Remaining is undemocratic.
You just want to scupper leaving - even although you lost.
Troubleatmill said:
No.
We are leaving the EU either with a deal or without.
The referendum was "Leave or Remain in the EU"
Any attempt to keep us in the EU is undemocratic.
What part of that do you not understand?
We voted. Your preferred choice lost. Time to move forward fella - and make it work for all of us.
Once we leave the EU - vote for whichever political party/ candidate you wish.
That is the beauty of our democracy - you can sack the lot of them.
You can't do that with the EU presidents etc.
As to why you are so emotionally attached to us backtracking to accept unelected presidents etc - I just don't get.
Do you have an issue with democracy?
What if people have changed their mind because of new information being available that wasn't at the time of the vote.We are leaving the EU either with a deal or without.
The referendum was "Leave or Remain in the EU"
Any attempt to keep us in the EU is undemocratic.
What part of that do you not understand?
We voted. Your preferred choice lost. Time to move forward fella - and make it work for all of us.
Once we leave the EU - vote for whichever political party/ candidate you wish.
That is the beauty of our democracy - you can sack the lot of them.
You can't do that with the EU presidents etc.
As to why you are so emotionally attached to us backtracking to accept unelected presidents etc - I just don't get.
Do you have an issue with democracy?
Would you still expect the original result to be adhered to?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff