How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
ORD said:
Of course we are going to subsidise our farmers. We will probably also impose import tariffs to protect them.
Can you imagine the adverse publicity if the government let farmers go under all over the country?
The idea that we will engage in rampant free trade and provide unmitigated access to our consumer markets is bonkers. Not going to happen.
Remember the drama about that Welsh steel plant? Why on earth are we making steel?! You cannot rationalise economy and just say 'It will make us all richer in the long term'. That's not how politics work.
This country should be trying very hard to protect its high tech and service sectors and letting low skill manufacturing die off. That's the economics. But it certainly is not politically viable.
UK steel is high tech, the engineering steels we produce are very specialist products. That's the kind of product we are and should be producing because the cheap Chinese steel isn't up to proper engineering requirements in quality or traceability.Can you imagine the adverse publicity if the government let farmers go under all over the country?
The idea that we will engage in rampant free trade and provide unmitigated access to our consumer markets is bonkers. Not going to happen.
Remember the drama about that Welsh steel plant? Why on earth are we making steel?! You cannot rationalise economy and just say 'It will make us all richer in the long term'. That's not how politics work.
This country should be trying very hard to protect its high tech and service sectors and letting low skill manufacturing die off. That's the economics. But it certainly is not politically viable.
///ajd said:
jsf said:
Is it? Who'd have thunk it eh?
you may find this helpful.
http://www.ahdb.org.uk/brexit/documents/BeefandLam...
Thanks, that is very helpful.you may find this helpful.
http://www.ahdb.org.uk/brexit/documents/BeefandLam...
It proves there are no opportunities with NZ, and no real threat as they are not using their quota. Seasonal smeasonal, what a red herring. I hope I don't have to explain to you why
The main threat to us is from EU tariffs if we don't get a zero tariff deal with the EU - which would really hit our domestic industry. Plus our biggest export destination is France so no risk of politics there then - perhaps powerstroke can suggest we give France our FS sector in exchange for protecting our shepard jobs.
The opportunities outlined are very limited for our cheaper bits of sheep as they are still not competitive with various non-EU markets. China is highlighted as an option however, but it notes NZ & Aus already have a tariff free deal there. It doesn't sound very optimistic does it?
Thanks again, very illuminating.
PurpleMoonlight said:
turbobloke said:
Ha ha, that's very funny.A minister complaining at the inflexibility, complication and fines of the EU.
He should try dealing with the UK Government from our side of the fence. A £100 fine for being a day late with a tax return that requires no tax to pay...
The guy who wrote that piece is a failed wanna be Mep who was standing for UKIP. Completely shocking that someone like that would write an op-ed berating EU.
Dr Jekyll said:
...
Also remember that allowing unmitigated access to markets was originally the whole point of the EEC. The fact that it's defenders now praise protectionism un defiance of basic economics goes to show how it's gone rogue.
The interesting conundrum with trying to argue tariffs. Also remember that allowing unmitigated access to markets was originally the whole point of the EEC. The fact that it's defenders now praise protectionism un defiance of basic economics goes to show how it's gone rogue.
The EU both has none internally (among very disparate nations/economies) but is also hugely protectionist outside of those member states.
Nobody, as I recall, has ever been able to note why the EU only deems tariff free trading, FoM etc etc a "good thing" for 28 member states. Why that magic number?
Tuna said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
While you may think it's great to lose all home production and import cheap alternatives, what about when those cheap alternatives decide to substantially increase their price because they no longer have any competition?
CAP severely distorts the market - it makes it more profitable to buy land that does nothing than to actually farm it. Using tariffs to protect a whole industry harms the whole nation - the subsidised product costs everyone more (reduced competition) for the benefit of a tiny number of producers.On the whole, it seems to me it's better to reduce tariffs (the whole nation benefits), and look to targeted subsidies (currently not allowed under EU membership) to preserve any strategic or nostalgic assets. The goal here is efficient businesses, not ones that are taught to limp from one bail out to the next.
If you genuinely believe EU membership has been good for UK farmers (rather than UK landowners), I suggest you go talk to some of the people who actually produce beef, wheat and so on. They'll tell you a different story. For sure you can find some large scale farms that will tell you how wonderful CAP payments are, but that's not actually preserving beef farming is it?
AC43 said:
I think Liam Fox the other day gave the example of there being an 80% tarriff on tinned peaches to protect Portuguese farmers.....
Tinned peaches are rank. I'd put a 200% tariff on them just to stop people eating them.(Maybe that's how tariffs should be set. Celery gets a 10,000% tariff and a prison sentence accordingly).
AC43 said:
I think Liam Fox the other day gave the example of there being an 80% tarriff on tinned peaches to protect Portuguese farmers.....
I was listening to Telegraphs brexit podcast the other day and they make some great points (I think the peach one is one of 8 they refer too). Remoaners (and I do see a difference between remainer / remoaners) talk about cost of living increase, but most of our clothing comes from the east 20-40% tariff and a lot of food can be sourced from Africa or south America (20-80%) tariff. If the government decided to abolish import duty on these products on brexit day+1 then we'd see a massive reduction in living costs.
Coffee was another example used. The EU (read Germany) imports €3bn of coffee beans each year, but sells €4bn of processed beans. This is a clear example of protectionism of a market and something we will be free off.
On the same podcast they had a few people from various trade bodies telling us about the work they are doing. All positive stuff. Businesses have already opened up conversations with suppliers outside the EU (I work in Purchasing / supply chain and we're well down this road. )
Yes this podcast was immensely biased in favour of brexit but a lot of the arguements were based on facts and figures, so very hard to dispute.
As mentioned several times in the thread, it seems like apparently despite incompetent leadership there is an army of civil servants and trade organisations working to make a success of this, and it will be the work of these many, not the few in the cabinet, that will make it work.
PRTVR said:
I agree mostly with that, but how do you cope with he likes of China who is selling it's steel under cost to maintain its plants ? Logically no body can compete on price so should shut down, then China can charge what it likes due to no competition, is that good ?
In the short term, if someone wants to sell you something for less than it actually costs to make, it seems sensible to accept..But yes, there does have to be some concern over competition and potential monopolies. As I understand it China is producing low-grade steel, which is pretty much a commodity product produced around the world. It doesn't seem likely or even possible for them to gain a monopoly.
For us to produce a similar product, we're still having to import the raw materials, so all we are doing is processing here, we're not self sufficient in any way. We are maintaining the ability to process higher value, higher quality steel, so it's a genuine question - how much should we also value being able to do something that is done at low cost around the world? If a rational (and more informed than I am) analysis says that this is strategically important, then a subsidy for maintaining or mothballing the facilities could be justified, but you can't make a decision based on fear and uncertainty.
In either case, putting a tariff on steel so that everyone has to pay over the odds is the worst possible way to protect our interests.
KarlMac said:
As mentioned several times in the thread, it seems like apparently despite incompetent leadership there is an army of civil servants and trade organisations working to make a success of this, and it will be the work of these many, not the few in the cabinet, that will make it work.
Have often mentioned the concept that out there, 20% of folk are strongly one way or the other, and 80% somewhere in the middle, tending to one or other persuasion but essentially just want to get on with life. Figures are for illustrative purposes only, before anyone starts picking up on the numbers.The issue that's causing frustration and fuelling discord at the moment is largely purely down to politicians and the media singing to the 20% who are split at opposite ends of the spectrum and there is no one speaking sensibly to the 80%.
The politicians are wanting to be seen to have haggled hard, fought against an intractable opponent so that ultimately they can stick their chests out and sell the results of this negotiation to their respective public.
The media are split singing to whichever end of that 20% their proprietors have determined, and their respective audience / echo chamber/ bubble lap it up as if it's gospel and the other lot are simply barking/ idiots/ traitors / simpletons / quislings et al. There is no real content to it, very little informed analysis that isn't deliberately and significantly biased. There is some but hard to find, so you get waste of column inches on Juncker getting drunk and all handsy, or that ridiculous frothing over a staged puff shot at a conference table , oh look Britain only gave one pencil, but look at all those papers the EU have, Britain is fooked. Grow up.
Yet the relatively silent 80% have no one speaking to or for them, so they, we, perhaps, are looking at utterly deluded things coming out and wondering wtf, e.g. EU position on some of the rights for EU citizens after Brexit, or UK wanting out of Euratom for what reason exactly, wtf again, grow up.
Part of the reason we had a referendum in 1975 was because party politics could not sort it out after Heath took us in without proper mandate, and again part of the reason we had one again in 2016 was because party politics wasn't working. The one thing that I'm taking out of this is that the main stream media and many of our current politicians just aren't fit for purpose. Oh for some proper decent analysis, but that doesn't click with viewers and readers.
KarlMac said:
AC43 said:
I think Liam Fox the other day gave the example of there being an 80% tarriff on tinned peaches to protect Portuguese farmers.....
I was listening to Telegraphs brexit podcast the other day and they make some great points (I think the peach one is one of 8 they refer too). Remoaners (and I do see a difference between remainer / remoaners) talk about cost of living increase, but most of our clothing comes from the east 20-40% tariff and a lot of food can be sourced from Africa or south America (20-80%) tariff. If the government decided to abolish import duty on these products on brexit day+1 then we'd see a massive reduction in living costs.
Coffee was another example used. The EU (read Germany) imports €3bn of coffee beans each year, but sells €4bn of processed beans. This is a clear example of protectionism of a market and something we will be free off.
On the same podcast they had a few people from various trade bodies telling us about the work they are doing. All positive stuff. Businesses have already opened up conversations with suppliers outside the EU (I work in Purchasing / supply chain and we're well down this road. )
Yes this podcast was immensely biased in favour of brexit but a lot of the arguements were based on facts and figures, so very hard to dispute.
As mentioned several times in the thread, it seems like apparently despite incompetent leadership there is an army of civil servants and trade organisations working to make a success of this, and it will be the work of these many, not the few in the cabinet, that will make it work.
I'm happy to listen to either case as long as it's well thought through and costed - and this one was.
FiF said:
Have often mentioned the concept that out there, 20% of folk are strongly one way or the other, and 80% somewhere in the middle, tending to one or other persuasion but essentially just want to get on with life. Figures are for illustrative purposes only, before anyone starts picking up on the numbers.
The issue that's causing frustration and fuelling discord at the moment is largely purely down to politicians and the media singing to the 20% who are split at opposite ends of the spectrum and there is no one speaking sensibly to the 80%.
The politicians are wanting to be seen to have haggled hard, fought against an intractable opponent so that ultimately they can stick their chests out and sell the results of this negotiation to their respective public.
The media are split singing to whichever end of that 20% their proprietors have determined, and their respective audience / echo chamber/ bubble lap it up as if it's gospel and the other lot are simply barking/ idiots/ traitors / simpletons / quislings et al. There is no real content to it, very little informed analysis that isn't deliberately and significantly biased. There is some but hard to find, so you get waste of column inches on Juncker getting drunk and all handsy, or that ridiculous frothing over a staged puff shot at a conference table , oh look Britain only gave one pencil, but look at all those papers the EU have, Britain is fooked. Grow up.
Yet the relatively silent 80% have no one speaking to or for them, so they, we, perhaps, are looking at utterly deluded things coming out and wondering wtf, e.g. EU position on some of the rights for EU citizens after Brexit, or UK wanting out of Euratom for what reason exactly, wtf again, grow up.
Part of the reason we had a referendum in 1975 was because party politics could not sort it out after Heath took us in without proper mandate, and again part of the reason we had one again in 2016 was because party politics wasn't working. The one thing that I'm taking out of this is that the main stream media and many of our current politicians just aren't fit for purpose. Oh for some proper decent analysis, but that doesn't click with viewers and readers.
Agree, good analysis.The issue that's causing frustration and fuelling discord at the moment is largely purely down to politicians and the media singing to the 20% who are split at opposite ends of the spectrum and there is no one speaking sensibly to the 80%.
The politicians are wanting to be seen to have haggled hard, fought against an intractable opponent so that ultimately they can stick their chests out and sell the results of this negotiation to their respective public.
The media are split singing to whichever end of that 20% their proprietors have determined, and their respective audience / echo chamber/ bubble lap it up as if it's gospel and the other lot are simply barking/ idiots/ traitors / simpletons / quislings et al. There is no real content to it, very little informed analysis that isn't deliberately and significantly biased. There is some but hard to find, so you get waste of column inches on Juncker getting drunk and all handsy, or that ridiculous frothing over a staged puff shot at a conference table , oh look Britain only gave one pencil, but look at all those papers the EU have, Britain is fooked. Grow up.
Yet the relatively silent 80% have no one speaking to or for them, so they, we, perhaps, are looking at utterly deluded things coming out and wondering wtf, e.g. EU position on some of the rights for EU citizens after Brexit, or UK wanting out of Euratom for what reason exactly, wtf again, grow up.
Part of the reason we had a referendum in 1975 was because party politics could not sort it out after Heath took us in without proper mandate, and again part of the reason we had one again in 2016 was because party politics wasn't working. The one thing that I'm taking out of this is that the main stream media and many of our current politicians just aren't fit for purpose. Oh for some proper decent analysis, but that doesn't click with viewers and readers.
ORD said:
It would have to absolutely sky rocket to make good the many billions of pounds that leaving the EU will cost in the medium term.
I don't doubt that leaving the EU may confer benefits over the long term, in theory.
My pessimism arises from the likely combination of hard Brexit with a Corbyn government. There won't be much left of this country to grow once that has unfolded!
Sorry, I've only just noticed this post of yours (from yesterday). - is that right, you have actually said....... 'I don't doubt that leaving the EU may confer benefits over the long term, in theory'.I don't doubt that leaving the EU may confer benefits over the long term, in theory.
My pessimism arises from the likely combination of hard Brexit with a Corbyn government. There won't be much left of this country to grow once that has unfolded!
I thought you were firmly committed to staying in the EU, hell, high water, the lot ?
FN2TypeR said:
Murph7355 said:
Tinned peaches are rank. I'd put a 200% tariff on them just to stop people eating them.
(Maybe that's how tariffs should be set. Celery gets a 10,000% tariff and a prison sentence accordingly).
Death sentence IMO(Maybe that's how tariffs should be set. Celery gets a 10,000% tariff and a prison sentence accordingly).
If that's how its going to be I'm switching to remain.
Robertj21a said:
ORD said:
It would have to absolutely sky rocket to make good the many billions of pounds that leaving the EU will cost in the medium term.
I don't doubt that leaving the EU may confer benefits over the long term, in theory.
My pessimism arises from the likely combination of hard Brexit with a Corbyn government. There won't be much left of this country to grow once that has unfolded!
Sorry, I've only just noticed this post of yours (from yesterday). - is that right, you have actually said....... 'I don't doubt that leaving the EU may confer benefits over the long term, in theory'.I don't doubt that leaving the EU may confer benefits over the long term, in theory.
My pessimism arises from the likely combination of hard Brexit with a Corbyn government. There won't be much left of this country to grow once that has unfolded!
I thought you were firmly committed to staying in the EU, hell, high water, the lot ?
If it could be done well and Britain was in a position to take advantage of the increased freedoms, it might well be a good idea over a 10+ year horizon.
But it's being done terribly, by incompetent ideologues. And Britain is in no shape to ride it out, let alone take the opportunities it offers.
A culture of leftish entitlement is about the worst starting point, and we have that in bucket loads.
ORD said:
Of course not. I've no ideological position on it at all.
If it could be done well and Britain was in a position to take advantage of the increased freedoms, it might well be a good idea over a 10+ year horizon.
But it's being done terribly, by incompetent ideologues. And Britain is in no shape to ride it out, let alone take the opportunities it offers.
A culture of leftish entitlement is about the worst starting point, and we have that in bucket loads.
Thanks, I'm beginning to agree with you, occasionally - and there was me thinking that you might be ///ajd.......If it could be done well and Britain was in a position to take advantage of the increased freedoms, it might well be a good idea over a 10+ year horizon.
But it's being done terribly, by incompetent ideologues. And Britain is in no shape to ride it out, let alone take the opportunities it offers.
A culture of leftish entitlement is about the worst starting point, and we have that in bucket loads.
Nothingtoseehere said:
FN2TypeR said:
Murph7355 said:
Tinned peaches are rank. I'd put a 200% tariff on them just to stop people eating them.
(Maybe that's how tariffs should be set. Celery gets a 10,000% tariff and a prison sentence accordingly).
Death sentence IMO(Maybe that's how tariffs should be set. Celery gets a 10,000% tariff and a prison sentence accordingly).
If that's how its going to be I'm switching to remain.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff