Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
T..
We leave in four months time, after we leave we continue negotiations under a transition period but we have left.
...
My understanding is that if the UK leaves without a deal, there is no transition period.
Negotiations can certainly continue, but it is difficult to understand why the remaining EU nations would want to cut the UK any slack. Why not encourage UK businesses to move to EU countries?
The UK certainly has the right to pull out and become independent of the EU.
And as I've written in several posts before, over the long-term this may well work out just fine.
However, over the short-term there will be significant economic impact and considerable disruption.
Unable to figure out how to mitigate this, a number have already resigned from office. I suspect more will follow.
Last edited by GotHereQuickAsICould; 11-24-2018 at 06:17 AM..
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,182 posts, read 13,469,799 times
Reputation: 19506
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould
Again, I've read your posts and your lengthy copying of information from Professor Collins. You both, if indeed there are two you, gloss over some key information.
For one it is not 98% of all world trade, but "98 per cent of world merchandise trade took place under WTO rules last year." including trade between the EU and other nations.
"WTO rules barely cover trade in services, including financial services and transportation."
But back to merchandise.
UK can certainly leave the EU's frictionless, free trade behind and trade under the WTO rules. However, this means tariffs.
"Tariffs remain a feature of trading under WTO rules and the EU charges a range of tariffs depending on the product or service. For example, the tariff on food products and beverages imported into the EU is 21% of the value of a shipment."
It has been suggested that "the UK scrap all tariffs and regulations for EU imports and continue to accept all products from the EU without checks."
However, according to the WTO rules about treating all WTO members equally, the UK would need to extend this to products from all other WTO members. "Is the UK ready to allow all food products, tariff-free and without checks into the UK market? Not only would this be very damaging to UK farmers and the food industry, it would threaten food quality and safety standards."
"Under WTO terms, the EU should treat the UK as any other country without providing any preferences and applying WTO tariffs – a big change from the zero tariffs that the UK has now."
If you can pull yourself away from Professor Collins, this is a short read and well worth it.
Merchandise is goods bought and sold.
As for standards in relation to imported goods Britain retains very high standards and all products impirted in to the UK will have to meet these standards after Brexit, just as we have to meet EU standards. Countries are not obliged to let any goods in your country that don't meet your food laws and this includes hormone meat, additives, GM Crops and a host of other criteria, the EU doesn't so why should post-Brexit Britain. Whilst even if such produce was allowed in it would have to have large labelling indicating what it was, which would mean very poor sales and there would be massive pressure for supermarket cains not to stock such products.
It's the same with access to Fnancial Services, whereby the US and other countries trade under equivalency laws, which is what the UK would do, whilst the WTO is set to impliment a Finanacial Trading Agreement in the future. The UK may seek enhanced equivalency plus a CETA type Canada Free Trade Agreement with the EU in the longer term. Furthermore it's predicted that the loss of some access to EU financial services would be negligible and would be more than made up by the freedom to trade under our own financial laws rather than under EU regulation.
As for tariffs, it's in the EU's own interest to lower tariiffs as they are the big agricultural economies who export food and wine to the UK and who rely on manufacturing and the $90 Billion a year trade surplus they have with the UK. The UK has a smaller agricultural sector which is why it started to receive a CAP rebate back in the 1980's, something Mrs Thatcher fought for, and the UK is a major importer of EU manufactured goods and automobiles. CAP or the Common Agricultural Police is a piece of EU Protectionism whereby EU members subsidise farmers, and it also makes sure that thrird world countries and other countries can't compete.
In terms of borders if the EU wants to hinder UK goods through less than frictionless trade, then we will merely import more goods fron other countries, the UK beng a maritime nation and many ports would welcome the extra trade. To demonstrate the scale of such trade, if you buy a chicken sandwich in a UK supermarket, the chicken will often have been shipped over on a refrigated container from Thailand, and we have plentiful shelves full of Austrialian, American, Chilean, Argentinian etc wine. By encouraging us to trade in argiculure and other commidies with other nations would be the equivalent of the EU shooting itself in the foot in terms of trade.
Countries can also make trade agreements with other countries outside the EU rather than just use WTO rules, something the UK may do in reation to CANZUK and other possible trading deal, this would be much simplier than trying to get a deal with 27 EU members who are all looking after their own competing national interests.
Last edited by Brave New World; 11-24-2018 at 06:57 AM..
I can sure understand why folks would not want EU courts to overrule UK courts.
Indeed, why should British troops be stationed in Estonia guarding against the Russians? So what if the Russians take over Estonia and the Baltic states like they did the Crimea and are doing in the Ukraine. That's no concern of Britains. Time to worry is when the Russians get to the Southend-on-Sea.
But to imagine that UK is going to get trade concessions after Brexit that they couldn't get before is probably a pipe dream.
Just read an article in The Telegraph that summed up May's plan. She thinks all she has to do is block migration and leave everything else in place. Brexiteers are all racist and xenophobic so that will solve the problem. The woman is totally out of touch.
Boris Johnson for PM! Think of the photo ops of him standing next to President Trump. The Hair Wars.
Last edited by PilgrimsProgress; 11-24-2018 at 12:55 PM..
As for standards in relation to imported goods Britain retains very high standards and all products impirted in to the UK will have to meet these standards after Brexit, just as we have to meet EU standards. Countries are not obliged to let any goods in your country that don't meet your food laws and this includes hormone meat, additives, GM Crops and a host of other criteria, the EU doesn't so why should post-Brexit Britain. Whilst even if such produce was allowed in it would have to have large labelling indicating what it was, which would mean very poor sales and there would be massive pressure for supermarket cains not to stock such products.
It's the same with access to Fnancial Services, whereby the US and other countries trade under equivalency laws, which is what the UK would do, whilst the WTO is set to impliment a Finanacial Trading Agreement in the future. The UK may seek enhanced equivalency plus a CETA type Canada Free Trade Agreement with the EU in the longer term. Furthermore it's predicted that the loss of some access to EU financial services would be negligible and would be more than made up by the freedom to trade under our own financial laws rather than under EU regulation.
As for tariffs, it's in the EU's own interest to lower tariiffs as they are the big agricultural economies who export food and wine to the UK and who rely on manufacturing and the $90 Billion a year trade surplus they have with the UK. The UK has a smaller agricultural sector which is why it started to receive a CAP rebate back in the 1980's, something Mrs Thatcher fought for, and the UK is a major importer of EU manufactured goods and automobiles. CAP or the Common Agricultural Police is a piece of EU Protectionism whereby EU members subsidise farmers, and it also makes sure that thrird world countries and other countries can't compete.
In terms of borders if the EU wants to hinder UK goods through less than frictionless trade, then we will merely import more goods fron other countries, the UK beng a maritime nation and many ports would welcome the extra trade. To demonstrate the scale of such trade, if you buy a chicken sandwich in a UK supermarket, the chicken will often have been shipped over on a refrigated container from Thailand, and we have plentiful shelves full of Austrialian, American, Chilean, Argentinian etc wine. By encouraging us to trade in argiculure and other commidies with other nations would be the equivalent of the EU shooting itself in the foot in terms of trade.
Countries can also make trade agreements with other countries outside the EU rather than just use WTO rules, something the UK may do in reation to CANZUK and other possible trading deal, this would be much simplier than trying to get a deal with 27 EU members who are all looking after their own competing national interests.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,182 posts, read 13,469,799 times
Reputation: 19506
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould
Did you not understand the post or the article?
Yes I do, and I am British and fully understand Brexit and the history of our relationship with Europe.
Obviously you don't have much of an alternative argument hence the one line reply stating I don't understand the issue when I have clearly laid out in full a comprehensive reply and analysis.
I could go in to a deeper analysis regarding the fundamental importance of the UK as a Defence and Security partner and an ally of the EU, and that our future relationship in this sphere also depends on any deal.
That's assuming the EU is going to agree with that. They aren't.
Why would they?
If the UK wants the EU nations to treat them like they would treat any other WTO nation in the world, well fine. So be it.
If it means UK banks will move their EU operations to their nations, if it means UK manufacturing plants will move their EU operations to their nations, if it means their products will be more competitive as UK exports will be more expensive due to tariffs and the decreased value of the the pound, .... well, why not?
Our nation was founded by folks who didn't want to live by British rules, so I can certainly understand the desire of British people not to have to live by EU rules.
It worked out well for us and I suspect it will eventually work out just fine for the British people.
Meanwhile, May has the job of selling this Brexit deal and she appears to be losing support as well as staff.
But who knows how the vote will go.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
