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.
No one would know what a Brexit "could cost, and one can always find argument that works in his favour. There will undoubtedly short term costs, but what about the benefits? Who measure that?
There is also additional cost associated with remaining in the EU, all the regulation and what it does to the UK. They don't seem interested in calculating that either.
All this fear mongering is stupid. If the UK could work well prior to joining the EU, it could function just fine without it, maybe better, because the EU doesn't work, in theory or in practice. Look at what they are doing to Greece -- they are not even trying to help the poor nation.
The British will be smart to leave the EU. Honestly, what's so hard with signing new trade agreement with other countries? The UK is famous for embracing free trade.
Believe it or not, I don't have a view on which way the UK should vote. The arguments on both sides are bordering on hysteria. Red herrings abound - also on both sides - and the only thing that is consistent is the lack of hard data.
The Remain camp have been their own worst enemy. Warnings of everything from border controls with Ireland to the Third World War haven't impressed anyone and are, put simply, not believable for the most part. The stuff that might be believable has got lost in the morass of 'warnings'. Also, enlisting foreign heads of government and 'dignitaries' to repeat the warnings have irritated many. This has made the Leave side's job quite easy. Keep the focus on immigration (also a red herring but an issue that resonates) and sovereignty. Those are issue that the public can grasp.
So there is a good chance that the UK might vote to leave. This, it would appear, is of great concern to the Germans as they are then left with a 'dirigiste' France and a bunch of other countries who are essentially after their money. And, of course, the loss of one of the biggest economies in the world will make TTIP much less attractive to the USA and harder for Germany - I mean the EU - to get a good deal.
So look for a vote to leave to be followed by a significantly sweetened deal for the UK and a 'revote' a few months down the line.
You're misreading. All I said, and all the WTO guy said was that Brexit could.........
By that standard we're on the same page......
Here's my relevant sentence from post # 82 above.
I used "may" he used "could" a distinction without a difference.
Yep, and that "may" would also apply to the EU. If the WTO requires the UK to renegotiate (and the UK is an original signatory of the first GATT, and every one that followed up until the WTO was formed in 1995 and which underpins the WTO), then it would also require that the EU do likewise, because they're no longer representative of the community that agreed to the treaties they are currently responsible for upholding. The WTO could not exclude the UK but include the EU without losing all credibility, such as it is anyway.
That of itself should imply that the WTO would not wish to act in this way.
The most logical solution would be for the UK and remaining EU to be asked simply whether or not they are retaining treaties that they were party to while in the EU, or while the UK was in the EU respectively.
Further, if the UK cannot alter import tariffs, then they must be bound by an agreement, if they're not bound by an agreement then they can alter import tariffs, which is a little contradictory from his statements. If altering tariffs would be "almost impossible", then there must be some restraint, but if the UK is not in the WTO then it's eminently possible (it being the sole remaining means of that restraint), this reads to me that it's almost impossible that the UK would no longer be a member of the WTO.
The WTO has a vested interest in maintaining the EU as a single dual entry entity, it streamlines negotiations, which is primarily what it's about.
Yep, and that "may" would also apply to the EU. If the WTO requires the UK to renegotiate (and the UK is an original signatory of the first GATT, and every one that followed up until the WTO was formed in 1995 and which underpins the WTO), then it would also require that the EU do likewise, because they're no longer representative of the community that agreed to the treaties they are currently responsible for upholding. The WTO could not exclude the UK but include the EU without losing all credibility, such as it is anyway.
That of itself should imply that the WTO would not wish to act in this way.
The most logical solution would be for the UK and remaining EU to be asked simply whether or not they are retaining treaties that they were party to while in the EU, or while the UK was in the EU respectively.
Further, if the UK cannot alter import tariffs, then they must be bound by an agreement, if they're not bound by an agreement then they can alter import tariffs, which is a little contradictory from his statements. If altering tariffs would be "almost impossible", then there must be some restraint, but if the UK is not in the WTO then it's eminently possible (it being the sole remaining means of that restraint), this reads to me that it's almost impossible that the UK would no longer be a member of the WTO.
The WTO has a vested interest in maintaining the EU as a single dual entry entity, it streamlines negotiations, which is primarily what it's about.
You appear to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the WTO. It's not just simply a matter of what the UK will agree to, or can negotiate with the EU once/if it leaves. Other countries have to agree to other related matters also.
The UK may be perfectly willing to accept the terms/conditions that the EU negotiated with the WTO, but all the other countries that are not part of the EU, may not be willing to agree to that for the UK. Ex colonies like India may see an opportunity to pounce on any number of issues that are important to them and of little interest to anyone else.
India etc. may have been unwilling to pick a fight with the EU because of the size of the EU market, but perfectly willing to pick a fight with the UK if it perceives there is opportunity. India might have for example, a 5% tariff on imports of cars from the EU, but want to impose a tariff of 25% on imports of cars from the UK. That's not a matter that the EU likely could or would wish to get involved in. And so, while the UK might be able to agree terms with the EU, there's no guarantee of a transfer of those terms to other countries.
Looking at different web sites, there seems to be a consensus that the UK will not only need to negotiate with the EU, but also negotiate new agreements with third parties.
Apparently these kind of negations typically take years.
Though in the case of a UK-US trade deal, I don't believe that the UK will have to go to the end of the one, despite what Obama said.
You appear to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the WTO. It's not just simply a matter of what the UK will agree to, or can negotiate with the EU once/if it leaves. Other countries have to agree to other related matters also.
Before you actually burst into flames...
Of course I just simplified the WTO arbitration process, because the current agreements include an EU with the UK, if the UK leaves the EU is a different entity, thus there is no requirement for the other party of an EU treaty to agree to, when Croatia joined the EU they had to amend the trade agreement with South Korea (since the agreement did not include Croatia), that would apply to any agreement that the EU has today. However it's in the best interests of the EU, UK, and WTO to make the whole situation seamless as possible, confidence is the big issue, if confidence can be restored by minimizing immediate impact, then everything will quickly recover, however if there is complete carnage, then we could be looking at another world depression. No one wants that, so it makes sense that all involved (including the French who threw their toys out of the pram with the TTIP negotiations) to put on their big girl panties and act like the statesmen they were elected to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBMD
The UK may be perfectly willing to accept the terms/conditions that the EU negotiated with the WTO, but all the other countries that are not part of the EU, may not be willing to agree to that for the UK. Ex colonies like India may see an opportunity to pounce on any number of issues that are important to them and of little interest to anyone else.
That equally applies to the third party and the EU, we don't know which specific market is the highest consumer of specific exports from specific nations, if the consumer market is the UK, then those countries may well demand a renegotiation with the EU, since it's fundamentally different post UK exit, and they don't receive the same benefits of the EU trade agreement that they formerly did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBMD
India etc. may have been unwilling to pick a fight with the EU because of the size of the EU market, but perfectly willing to pick a fight with the UK if it perceives there is opportunity. India might have for example, a 5% tariff on imports of cars from the EU, but want to impose a tariff of 25% on imports of cars from the UK. That's not a matter that the EU likely could or would wish to get involved in. And so, while the UK might be able to agree terms with the EU, there's no guarantee of a transfer of those terms to other countries.
Size of market gross is irrelevant, if the trade is predominantly between the UK and India, sure the EU is has the potential to be a bigger market if everything works out, but if the UK is a bigger market now, then you don't want to lose that market. A dollar in your pocket is worth more now than possibly two dollars next month. They could work out the kinks as time progresses.
India couldn't impose a 25% import tariff on goods, that would violate it's agreement with the WTO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Randal Walker
Looking at different web sites, there seems to be a consensus that the UK will not only need to negotiate with the EU, but also negotiate new agreements with third parties.
Apparently these kind of negations typically take years.
Though in the case of a UK-US trade deal, I don't believe that the UK will have to go to the end of the one, despite what Obama said.
Trade agreements are a bit of a red herring. The WTO requires that all members are limited to the restrictions an tariffs they place on member trade items, whether or not they have a formal agreement or not. Trade will occur whether or not there is a formal agreement, where the WTO comes in is if there needs to be obstacles removed or unfair practices being enacted against trading partners.
Agreements are often signed so that more favorable terms can be defined than standard WTO, there's a bunch of conditions across all government functions.
Looking at different web sites, there seems to be a consensus that the UK will not only need to negotiate with the EU, but also negotiate new agreements with third parties.
Apparently these kind of negations typically take years.
Though in the case of a UK-US trade deal, I don't believe that the UK will have to go to the end of the one, despite what Obama said.
Except that you don't need an inter-governmental trade deal to do business. Neither the UK nor the EU has a 'trade deal' with the USA at this point in time but the USA remains their biggest single trading partner.
Looking at different web sites, there seems to be a consensus that the UK will not only need to negotiate with the EU, but also negotiate new agreements with third parties.
Apparently these kind of negations typically take years.
Though in the case of a UK-US trade deal, I don't believe that the UK will have to go to the end of the one, despite what Obama said.
There are plenty of countries in the world that are doing business and trade just fine without negotiated trade deals. Don't make it sound like the UK international trade will suddenly disappear if it leaves the EU.
Does the US even have a free trade agreement with China? That's the world's largest two economies.
The 'true believers' on either side are passionate about their option. But what I am reading on UK message boards that I use is that neither campaign is doing a good job of convincing the electorate. These are typical of some of the comments:
"To the neutral, there has been very little to separate two very unconvincing campaigns offering little in the way of digestible information that really offers any real comfort in either result."
"Since the Leave speakers cannot come up with impresive reasons for leaving, I'm thinking of voting Stay, not because I'm particularly impressed with the Stay speakers but remain with the current position of belongiing to the EU."
"The 'remain' camp has no vision because while the 'brexit' idea is in many ways scary, and untested, and at times looks like bull****...the EU is already well known, and widely loathed in UK. People suffer it as they believe - and still do I think - that it benefits us overall."
Except that you don't need an inter-governmental trade deal to do business. Neither the UK nor the EU has a 'trade deal' with the USA at this point in time but the USA remains their biggest single trading partner.
Yes, even though trade blocs have been in fashion in recent years.
In the specific case of UK-US trade, I doubt that Brexit will interfere with the existing level of trade because there is no formal agreement.
Last edited by Tim Randal Walker; 06-08-2016 at 09:25 AM..
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.
