How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 2)

[jjlynn27]

Tuna said:

jjlynn27 said:

Tuna said:

I thought that WTO rules don't preclude unilateral free trade? They dictate a maximum tariff, not a minimum one. So I'm not clear what your call to authority is about?

It does not a 'call to authority'. It's pointing and laughing at a numpty who talks about lack of basic economic understanding.

So, I'm right that WTO rules don't preclude free trade then?

Relevance? I was pointing and laughing at the bloke who understands WTO rules better than dir-gen of WTO. Not sure that I can make this any simpler.

Tuna said:

Which is it - a vital income stream or an irrelevance? You seem a bit confused about this economic stuff.

Not confused at all, but since it seems that way to you, I'll use shorter words to help you out.

- Irrelevant to me as a consumer, especially as it's more than offset by the change in FX.
- Whatever the total amount is, for the government, it will need to be replaced by something else, unless it's to be added to borrowing. You added 'vital' for the dramatic effect. As you usually do.

If I'm going too fast, feel free to ask for a clarification at any point.

Tuna said:

I note you didn't mention the 16% rate on citrus fruits. I can't find what the UK consumption is - but as we spend around £9 billion a year on fruit, wouldn't a lower tariff be a useful benefit to the UK?

Meaningless question. 'useful benefit to the UK'; define UK, consumer or UK government. If you are that interested in citrus fruits, find numbers.

Tuna said:

As the majority of our fruit historically comes from within the EU, dropping the tariff wouldn't involve such a cut in the income stream you were slightly concerned about, but it would potentially make healthy fruit significantly cheaper, and benefit countries like Africa which the EU is currently trying to shut out.

'potentially' - depends on so many things that everything else is just a filler.

Tuna said:

Of course, these are just a couple of examples, but it should be fairly obvious that the thoughtless dismissal of some of the ideas brought up by free trade shows a certain amount of.. economic illiteracy, wouldn't you agree?

Yet another misrepresentation. Picking few examples, and trying to look at them in isolation (for above, no mention of the impact of FX) is both dishonest, unsurprisingly, and economically illiterate.

[Tuna]

jjlynn27 said:

Relevance? I was pointing and laughing at the bloke who understands WTO rules better than dir-gen of WTO. Not sure that I can make this any simpler.

'The bloke' actually said "How much explanation do you need as to why the freedom to lift import tariffs is good?" - which funnily enough the WTO appears to agree with, as unlike the EU it does not require a minimum tariff to be set. You can make it as simple as you like, but your sneering hides the fact you were talking nonsense.

jjlynn27 said:

Yet another misrepresentation. Picking few examples, and trying to look at them in isolation (for above, no mention of the impact of FX) is both dishonest, unsurprisingly, and economically illiterate.

You started this by trying to rubbish the idea of free trade... and now that doesn't hold up, you want to bring in FX? In what way does FX preclude the idea that tariff free imports can benefit a country?

[ORD]

His point is fairly simple. Brexit trashed Sterling’s value, making all imports more expensive and negating the effect of any reduction in tariffs (which will be minimal in any case, because this government is not going to give up a revenue source given the terrible state of the public finances).

All this absolutist free trade stuff should probably have been explained to the farmers and fisherman that voted for a Brexit that will hit them very hard.

[jjlynn27]

andymadmak said:

...
I am not accusing JJ of being a troll, I just think he can't communicate in a civil fashion...

andymadmak said:

Actually, just checked.....you are not a teacher. Relief! Just an idiot

andymadmak said:

Look, just stop being such an idiot and read what Jimbeaux said will you?

First posts on 5 seconds search.

[jjlynn27]

At least you understood other points. Took you a while but you got there.

Tuna said:

jjlynn27 said:

Relevance? I was pointing and laughing at the bloke who understands WTO rules better than dir-gen of WTO. Not sure that I can make this any simpler.

'The bloke' actually said "How much explanation do you need as to why the freedom to lift import tariffs is good?" - which funnily enough the WTO appears to agree with, as unlike the EU it does not require a minimum tariff to be set. You can make it as simple as you like, but your sneering hides the fact you were talking nonsense.

He also said

Dr Jekyll said:

It's extraordinary the way Remainers, who consider themselves an intellectual elite, are ignorant of the most basic economics

My reply was to that part, not the part that you are quoting. The part that you are quoting is irrelevant in relation to my reply. No sneering, no talking nonsense. Yes?

Tuna said:

You started this by trying to rubbish the idea of free trade...

Nope, not at all, read above. I enjoy free trade, almost as I enjoy reading your posts. I just don't equate unilaterally dropping tariffs to free trade.

Tuna said:

and now that doesn't hold up, you want to bring in FX? In what way does FX preclude the idea that tariff free imports can benefit a country?

Everything 'holds up'. There was no 'bringing in FX'. As for the last sentence, please stop. Just stop.

[andymadmak]

jjlynn27 said:

First posts on 5 seconds search.

I never claimed to be perfect.

I am however, considerably more civil to others on these forums than yow!

[Tuna]

ORD said:

His point is fairly simple. Brexit trashed Sterling’s value, making all imports more expensive and negating the effect of any reduction in tariffs (which will be minimal in any case, because this government is not going to give up a revenue source given the terrible state of the public finances).

All this absolutist free trade stuff should probably have been explained to the farmers and fisherman that voted for a Brexit that will hit them very hard.

Yes... our local farmer is living in constant fear that his orange harvest will be worth nothing..

The problem is, his 'point' is *simple* - simplistic to the point of nonsense. Sterling's value going up or down does not negate a separate economic benefit. You don't start claiming that 'Brexit trashed sterling, so we can't invest in the NHS', and you can't say that the benefits of reducing tariffs are somehow irrelevant because there has been an adjustment in the exchange rate.

[Tuna]

jjlynn27 said:

At least you understood other points. Took you a while but you got there.

What other points? You're talking nonsense. What point do you think you have made?

[ORD]

Tuna said:

Yes... our local farmer is living in constant fear that his orange harvest will be worth nothing..

The problem is, his 'point' is *simple* - simplistic to the point of nonsense. Sterling's value going up or down does not negate a separate economic benefit. You don't start claiming that 'Brexit trashed sterling, so we can't invest in the NHS', and you can't say that the benefits of reducing tariffs are somehow irrelevant because there has been an adjustment in the exchange rate.

But you can say that the tariff effect is not a reason to go for hard Brexit (because it will be more than offset by the continued low value of Sterling).

Anyway, all rather academic given that the government is not going to slash tariffs (unilaterally or otherwise). We all know this, so it is pure fantasy.

As for your orange harvest point, that's an obvious straw man and is below you.

[confused_buyer]

ORD said:

His point is fairly simple. Brexit trashed Sterling’s value, making all imports more expensive and negating the effect of any reduction in tariffs (which will be minimal in any case, because this government is not going to give up a revenue source given the terrible state of the public finances).

Note that Tariffs from non-EU imports get paid to the central EU less 20% to cover collection costs. At the moment the UK gains very little directly from any tariffs collected as is the case with any member state. Obviously members states may benefit from them indirectly.

However, it terms of direct income, you could in theory slash tariffs with no real effect on current income as we don't receive it at the moment anyway.

[confused_buyer]

ORD said:

But you can say that the tariff effect is not a reason to go for hard Brexit (because it will be more than offset by the continued low value of Sterling).

Putting short term currency fluctuations into decision making about long term things such as tariffs is bonkers. You simply can't account for or know where currencies will go. Tariffs - high, low or zero have to be looked at and decided on their own merits ignoring currency fluctuations.

If that is what you are saying, then I agree with you.

[anonymous-user]

Some of the government ministers of EU countries are starting to make noises.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-12...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-08...

[Tuna]

ORD said:

But you can say that the tariff effect is not a reason to go for hard Brexit (because it will be more than offset by the continued low value of Sterling).

Anyway, all rather academic given that the government is not going to slash tariffs (unilaterally or otherwise). We all know this, so it is pure fantasy.

As for your orange harvest point, that's an obvious straw man and is below you.

I'm not saying anything is a reason for Brexit - we're rather beyond arguing the Referendum at this point. I'm saying that some of the arguments for dropping tariffs are very valid and would have a net positive effect, so should be a serious goal in Brexit negotiations. This was in counter to jj who was intent on sneering at someone for daring to bring up the concept. In fairness, jj now denies this and claims he was just laughing for the hell of it or something.

The orange harvest point was pure frustration that you (and others) would actually deliberately miss serious economic opportunities because they don't fit the Referendum campaign you're apparently still fighting. Who goes into negotiations still arguing over the long walk from the car park on the way in?

[jjlynn27]

Tuna said:

What other points? You're talking nonsense. What point do you think you have made?

To start, and given it's you, we'll do baby steps; that your reply was completely irrelevant given that you assumed, wrongly, what my reply was in relation to.
Once you are able to process this, let me know, so we can continue.

[jjlynn27]

andymadmak said:

jjlynn27 said:

First posts on 5 seconds search.

I never claimed to be perfect.

I am however, considerably more civil to others on these forums than yow!

You wouldn't have data to underpin that opinion? Tell you what, there is a someone here, who enjoys going through the threads, post by post counting perceived insults. I know, that that might appear sad to a normal person, but shall we get him to count all perceived insults and come up with civility coefficient?

[Digga]

jjlynn27 said:

andymadmak said:

jjlynn27 said:

First posts on 5 seconds search.

I never claimed to be perfect.

I am however, considerably more civil to others on these forums than yow!

You wouldn't have data to underpin that opinion? Tell you what, there is a someone here, who enjoys going through the threads, post by post counting perceived insults. I know, that that might appear sad to a normal person, but shall we get him to count all perceived insults and come up with civility coefficient?

Twelvty!

[Dr Jekyll]

jjlynn27 said:

To start, and given it's you, we'll do baby steps; that your reply was completely irrelevant given that you assumed, wrongly, what my reply was in relation to.
Once you are able to process this, let me know, so we can continue.

As I understand it, you were accusing me of thinking I knew more about WTO rules than the Director General of the WTO, on the basis that I said tariffs could be reduced to zero and you said they couldn't. The DG of the WTO agrees they can be reduced to zero, but you say that's irrelevant.

[jjlynn27]

confused_buyer said:

Note that Tariffs from non-EU imports get paid to the central EU less 20% to cover collection costs. At the moment the UK gains very little directly from any tariffs collected as is the case with any member state. Obviously members states may benefit from them indirectly.

However, it terms of direct income, you could in theory slash tariffs with no real effect on current income as we don't receive it at the moment anyway.

Import duty is paid to EU minus 25% (IIRC) to cover administrative costs. Actual administrative costs are less than 3% again this is from memory and I'll try to get the source confirmed.

[jjlynn27]

confused_buyer said:

Putting short term currency fluctuations into decision making about long term things such as tariffs is bonkers. You simply can't account for or know where currencies will go. Tariffs - high, low or zero have to be looked at and decided on their own merits ignoring currency fluctuations.

If that is what you are saying, then I agree with you.

In your opinions, does unilaterally reducing tariffs have an impact on FX?

[andymadmak]

jjlynn27 said:

You wouldn't have data to underpin that opinion? Tell you what, there is a someone here, who enjoys going through the threads, post by post counting perceived insults. I know, that that might appear sad to a normal person, but shall we get him to count all perceived insults and come up with civility coefficient?

OK, I am happy if someone does a count up. If someone cannot be arsed to do that, then I am I am equally happy for both of us to be judged by our peers on here on a purely subjective basis.

Do we need to set up a poll or something? New thread?