How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 5)

[B'stard Child]

Ghibli said:

B'stard Child said:

Only in your mind

What is the trade deal? Is it known yet.

You think anyone on PH is privy/party to that - you are very strange

[amusingduck]

Tuna said:

Lol. Good luck with getting an answer on that. Ghibli's entire reasoning doesn't go deeper than "It's obvious". He's not got a clue.

Watching your back and forth with Ghibli reminds me of this -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIFEEBV_Bj8

Should be obvious who's who

[psi310398]

andymadmak said:

Ghibli said:

andymadmak said:

Ghibli said:

It would be nice to trade as we are in a transition period

Why would we not be able to trade under a 'No deal, WTO' scenario?

We would be able to trade under WTO but we won't have the trade agreements.

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

Well, in the interests of balance, you'd have to acknowledge that there are also considerable costs we currently incur as a nation that we need not pay in future viz hosing foreign farmers and fishermen down with subsidies paid for by our taxes and then paying artificially inflated prices (around 20% higher on average than world prices) for the resultant food as a result of the relief from competition by protectionist tariffs applied by the EU to produce from most of the world beyond the EU. The same applies to garments. And we will get to retain the VAT payments that would otherwise be remitted to Brussels.

[B'stard Child]

Tuna said:

Ghibli said:

Great we have been saved. A shame when people wanted WTO.

Seriously?

You do understand that under WTO you can make trade deals? WTO is a backstop. We already use it - EU membership is a trade deal on top of WTO.

Actually, why bother asking. You don't understand what WTO actually involves, you don't understand the costs of trading, you don't really seem to understand anything.

I thought it was top trolling - in fact he's been on top form for the last 3 volumes and 300 pages

[anonymous-user]

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.

Perhaps you could look up all the agreements and tarriffs and let me know.

No, no no. You're the one who thinks that trading under WTO represents a problem. You'll have to explain yourself.
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?

You appear to not understand that we want Free trade agreements. We can trade under WTO as a starting point to get FTA. We will not have a free trade agreement with the EU in a no deal situation, we may also lose the FTA that we currently have being an EU member.

Which bit don't you understand.

[PurpleMoonlight]

psi310398 said:

Well, in the interests of balance, you'd have to acknowledge that there are also considerable costs we currently incur as a nation that we need not pay in future viz hosing foreign farmers and fishermen down with subsidies paid for by our taxes and then paying artificially inflated prices (around 20% higher on average than world prices) for the resultant food as a result of the relief from competition by protectionist tariffs applied by the EU to produce from most of the world beyond the EU. The same applies to garments. And we will get to retain the VAT payments that would otherwise be remitted to Brussels.

Bit of a bummer that the UK is intending on matching those protectionist tariffs then huh.

[Nickgnome]

Sway said:

amusingduck said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

Vanden Saab said:

And how do you think that would go? It is a different thing to win in a court you do not control. How many other countries would want to risk signing treaties with such an organisation?

No idea who would win.

Yes, if we default on the EU it doesn't look good for our world status or future trade utopia.

Who said anything about defaulting?

Even if we did - how many trade deals with Iceland were cancelled in the last decade? Who stopped doing business with them?

Crikey, some people really do need to recognise realpolitik. When we can have Trump tear up trade deals and climate change treaties, biological weapons deployed on UK soil, journalists getting dismembered, etc., and business still gets done - a spat over potential and ambiguous Treaty commitments is piffling.

USA and China have sufficient financial muscle to throw their weight around. Our GDP is broadly similar to Canada and Mexico combined and it has not gone particularly well for them since Trump became president. I wouldn't bet on getting a good deal from the USA.

We found with our company that reputation was all and watched a couple of companies in associated industries suffer greatly when they tried to duck contractual obligations.

If this brave new world no longer requires WTO, FTAs or the like we can only suffer as emerging economies overtake us which in any case is inevitable.

[Sway]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Bit of a bummer that the UK is intending on matching those protectionist tariffs then huh.

No, it's not. Please don't once again make the false claim that the regime logged with the WTO only covers the proposed transition period. Not our future regime.

[andymadmak]

Ghibli said:

You appear to not understand that we want Free trade agreements. We can trade under WTO as a starting point to get FTA. We will not have a free trade agreement with the EU in a no deal situation, we may also lose the FTA that we currently have being an EU member.

Which bit don't you understand.

You have not answered the questions (quelle surprise! )

You have a bee in your bonnet about the UK trading under WTO. You accept that we can still trade. What is your objection then to WTO ?

Yes, we like to have FTA with countries. But, we cannot negotiate those until after we have left the EU. (Them's the rules). So, I think we all agree that we start day one with no FTAs, and all WTO if we leave without a deal.
My question stands then, what is your objection to trading under WTO?

You have mentioned tariffs a couple of times..... would it be fair to assume that your objection is primarily in this area? A cost issue?
For you to object, you must surely have some idea what the average tariff costs will be? So come on then, clue us all in as to what you think the cost to the average man in the street is from a WTO style trading arrangement on day one.... Remember to include in your workings out the tariffs that will be lower than they currently are (under EU membership) and also to factor in the change in the value of Sterling over the past 2 years.....

[Dr Jekyll]

Ghibli said:

You appear to not understand that we want Free trade agreements. We can trade under WTO as a starting point to get FTA. We will not have a free trade agreement with the EU in a no deal situation, we may also lose the FTA that we currently have being an EU member.

Which bit don't you understand.

FTAs come under WTO, it isn't either/or.

[anonymous-user]

Sway said:

No, it's not. Please don't once again make the false claim that the regime logged with the WTO only covers the proposed transition period. Not our future regime.

What transition period are we having in a no deal situation.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Sway said:

No, it's not. Please don't once again make the false claim that the regime logged with the WTO only covers the proposed transition period. Not our future regime.

Can you prove that?

[The Dangerous Elk]

PurpleMoonlight said:

If you walk away from a contract, more often than not you don't enjoy the benefits of that contract even if you remain liable for a financial cost incurred within it.

Who would be walking away from the "contract", if we are still paying we should still benefit.

[anonymous-user]

andymadmak said:

You have not answered the questions (quelle surprise! )

You have a bee in your bonnet about the UK trading under WTO. You accept that we can still trade. What is your objection then to WTO ?

Yes, we like to have FTA with countries. But, we cannot negotiate those until after we have left the EU. (Them's the rules). So, I think we all agree that we start day one with no FTAs, and all WTO if we leave without a deal.
My question stands then, what is your objection to trading under WTO?

You have mentioned tariffs a couple of times..... would it be fair to assume that your objection is primarily in this area? A cost issue?
For you to object, you must surely have some idea what the average tariff costs will be? So come on then, clue us all in as to what you think the cost to the average man in the street is from a WTO style trading arrangement on day one.... Remember to include in your workings out the tariffs that will be lower than they currently are (under EU membership) and also to factor in the change in the value of Sterling over the past 2 years.....

its costing the average man on the street already with higher costs and smaller portions of food etc.

How much better off will he be if we only trade under WTO?

If you have gone through all of the tarriffs and costing please present the figures.

A deal is preferred by even Mogg why would he want a deal if WTO is the best option.

[Sway]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Sway said:

No, it's not. Please don't once again make the false claim that the regime logged with the WTO only covers the proposed transition period. Not our future regime.

Can you prove that?

Yep: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/...

Note, this is "WTO transition", not "withdrawal transition"...

[PurpleMoonlight]

Sway said:

Yep: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/...

Note, this is "WTO transition", not "withdrawal transition"...

Paywall.

[andymadmak]

Ghibli said:

its costing the average man on the street already with higher costs and smaller portions of food etc.

How much better off will he be if we only trade under WTO?

If you have gone through all of the tarriffs and costing please present the figures.

A deal is preferred by even Mogg why would he want a deal if WTO is the best option.

Still wriggling I see. My point is that you must be basing your objections on something.. You keep bouncing questions back, but you're the one who is so concerned about WTO. Brexit causing smaller portions? ( mind you, you must already be losing weight with all the wriggling you're doing trying to avoid answering any questions put to you)
FTAs are certainly good to have. And have them we will in due course.

Let me make this simpler still for you, since your primary objection to Brexit seems to be financial: If, over the next (say) 5 years the average person in the street no better off and no worse off as a result of Brexit, would you still be objecting to it?

[Tuna]

In a parallel universe somewhere nearby:

Brian: I'm going to cancel our member ship of the "Friends of Dominos Club"

Dribbly: WHAT?! How can you do that. We get two pounds off every Dominos Pizza! How can you cancel that?!

Brian: But it costs us £200 a week to be members, we don't eat that much p..

Dribbly: But two pounds! You can't deny that a saving of two pounds is better than no saving!

Brian: It doesn't work out, if you do the maths it's..

Dribbly: You don't get it do you? Is two pounds off a saving or not?

Brian: Not if you take into account the membership fee. Besides, they demand we only eat Dominos Pizzas.

Dribbly: What - are you saying you hate Pizza? You're anti-pizza aren't you?

Brian: When did I ever say that? A pizza from Sainsbury's is half the price... I'd be happy with that.

Dribbly: So you want to give up a two pound saving for a pizza made by people with no food standards?

Brian: What are you talking about?

Dribbly: Dominos have the highest food standards. You want to give that up for an unknown saving.

Brian: Uh.. Sainsbury's have food standards, you do know that? And the saving can be calculated, it's...

Dribbly: There's no saving on Sainsbury's Pizza!! You have to pay the full price!

Brian: Which is less than Dominos..

Dribbly: OMG, you hate Dominos. You're trying to stop me from eating them!

Brian: No, not really, it's fine to have a Dominos every now and th..

Dribbly: You're forcing me to pay an extra two pounds and trying to ban Dominos!

Brian: You really are a cretin, aren't you?

Dribbly: Duh... it's spelt crouton. Don't you even know that?

[anonymous-user]

andymadmak said:

Ghibli said:

its costing the average man on the street already with higher costs and smaller portions of food etc.

How much better off will he be if we only trade under WTO?

If you have gone through all of the tarriffs and costing please present the figures.

A deal is preferred by even Mogg why would he want a deal if WTO is the best option.

Still wriggling I see. My point is that you must be basing your objections on something.. You keep bouncing questions back, but you're the one who is so concerned about WTO. Brexit causing smaller portions? ( mind you, you must already be losing weight with all the wriggling you're doing trying to avoid answering any questions put to you)
FTAs are certainly good to have. And have them we will in due course.

Let me make this simpler still for you, since your primary objection to Brexit seems to be financial: If, over the next (say) 5 years the average person in the street no better off and no worse off as a result of Brexit, would you still be objecting to it?

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.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Tuna said:

In a parallel universe somewhere nearby:

Brian: I'm going to cancel our member ship of the "Friends of Dominos Club"

Dribbly: WHAT?! How can you do that. We get two pounds off every Dominos Pizza! How can you cancel that?!

Brian: But it costs us £200 a week to be members, we don't eat that much p..

Dribbly: But two pounds! You can't deny that a saving of two pounds is better than no saving!

Brian: It doesn't work out, if you do the maths it's..

Dribbly: You don't get it do you? Is two pounds off a saving or not?

Brian: Not if you take into account the membership fee. Besides, they demand we only eat Dominos Pizzas.

Dribbly: What - are you saying you hate Pizza? You're anti-pizza aren't you?

Brian: When did I ever say that? A pizza from Sainsbury's is half the price... I'd be happy with that.

Dribbly: So you want to give up a two pound saving for a pizza made by people with no food standards?

Brian: What are you talking about?

Dribbly: Dominos have the highest food standards. You want to give that up for an unknown saving.

Brian: Uh.. Sainsbury's have food standards, you do know that? And the saving can be calculated, it's...

Dribbly: There's no saving on Sainsbury's Pizza!! You have to pay the full price!

Brian: Which is less than Dominos..

Dribbly: OMG, you hate Dominos. You're trying to stop me from eating them!

Brian: No, not really, it's fine to have a Dominos every now and th..

Dribbly: You're forcing me to pay an extra two pounds and trying to ban Dominos!

Brian: You really are a cretin, aren't you?

Dribbly: Duh... it's spelt crouton. Don't you even know that?

I preferred yesterdays sketch.