Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by Deleted member 33931, Oct 2, 2017.
Specific benefits of this ?
This reply seems to think every thing would have been hunky dory had we stayed.
That couldn't be further from the truth once we had voted to surrender our sovereignty to the EU, they would have systematically taken us to pieces, like they are with other counties who are controlled by them.
You need me to explain trade.
God we are lucky we voted out if that's the level of remoaners.
Bianco meet Filly. Filly, Bianco.
You two will get along together just fine.
Let's try a ciggie paper... Nope, won't go.
And if you are too thick-witted to come up with yer own, at least try and get the spells right.
You idle fool - these are not my 'takes' on this, they are the best analysis from the peeps who should know.
I'm just the one who's bright and critical enough to read, digest and analyse it.
You go back to the Mail, y'hear?
Things were not hunky dory, IIR, because there was a world wide financial crash in 2008.
Prior to that, we were doing pretty darned ok.
Yes, I know that nothing is good enough for the likes of you - who think they are somehow owed 'everything' - and who are itching to blame 'others' when you don't have it - but, until that crash, we were better off that at any point prior to this.
And the UK was almost always in the top two for economic growth in the G7.
'All' we needed was a government that took advantage of that growth to equalise out the wealth disparity in our country, properly finance our public services and ohnevermind.
That party was never going to the be Tories. Never has been. It's ain't in their ideological genes.
So, actually, the country was not doing badly at all. And that's largely thanks to our close trading ties with the EU.
The crash happened, services got cut - and when we are too stupid/bigoted to learn from history, it will - and is - repeating itself. I have no doubt whatsoever, IIR, that you also let out a little bit of wee-wee in excitement at the Austrian election result.
Go on then explain it.
Explain how trading with the EU will be better after brexit.
Please explain it.
Anyhoo, here begineth the lesson.
Around half Britain's trade and investment is with the EU, and we currently implement almost the same standards for products and services.
This works really well. It's why we are (sorry, were...) one of the fastest growing economies in the EU and the world.
The Gov's white paper on Brexit makes few concrete announcements, but one is that - should we 'crash out' of the EU - we'd establish a new UK trading schedule with the WTO that would try and follow the same regime as we currently have with the EU as much as possible; similar tariffs, quotas etc.
But, if we don't make a trade deal with the EU after Brexit, the EU and UK would would need to charge eachother the tariffs we charge other WTO members.
The average tariff rate is low - around 1.5% - but some products attract higher tariffs - cars at 10%. The head of European marketing at Nissan described this as a 'disaster' for the UK industry. (Of course, we recall that the Gov has made a 'promise' to Nissan - I wonder how long that can be financed? And what will all the other companies hit by WTO tariffs have to say?)
Tariffs also affect food prices. Food price inflation (which had been negative pre-vote) has alreadly hit its highest level in 4 years at 2.9% - and that's without added WTO tariffs.
Aggie products imported in to the EU have very high tariffs - meat can be as high as 84%, dairy produce up to 74%, grains up to 63%. Since 71% of the UK's aggie imports currently come from the EU, if no new deal is reached food prices can be expected to rise even further.
UK's farmers will will also suffer since the current figure of E16.1billion of aggie exports from the UK to the EU is bound to drop as our new WTO-based tariffs are added.
Hard Brexies might see Leaving as a chance to drop tariffs completely so would reduce the costs to British consumers, but tariff levels are one of the main bargaining chips in any trade negotiation - if we drop our import tariffs without getting a reciprocal deal with new foreign markets, it would be hard for prices to fall enough to make up for the job losses in industries that would face competition from these imports. And since tariffs are higher in manufacturing industries, that would be the area (already struggling in the UK) most hard hit with job losses in this country.
The Customs Union binds all members to charge the same common external tariffs (ie with countries outwith the EU). This is so that members don't import goods at a reduced tariff from outside and then 'export' them to the rest of the EU, by-passing other member's tariffs. That is a sensible deal that works both ways for all members. Countries like Iceland and Norway - which are members of the single market but NOT the customs union - have to go through customs checks to ensure their goods were largely manufactured in their countries. The cost of complying with these custom checks is around 8% of the value of the goods, almost all in additional paperwork.
8% Eight per cent.
Is the Norwegian system a good one we could copy? Well, a recent survey by the Swedish National Board of Trade found that Norway ranked top along with the likes of Russia as a 'problematic' trading partner, singling out the 'incredibly cumbersome' customs handling rules.
Such 'Norwegian' rules would have \ severe effect on the car industry since 56% of the cars made in the UK go to the EU. The supply chain is highly integrated with some parts crossing borders around 40 times! Because of this, the car manufacturing sector would like their own specific deal that would keep these tariffs at zero, but the UK and EU cannot can't sign the sort of deal that would remove tariffs from the car sector and no other. To prevent such 'cherry-picking' and discriminating against other WTO members, the WTO only recognises bilateral trade deals that cover almost all forms of trade between the countries involved; a zero tariff arrangement for just the car industry is therefore unrealistic is we join the WTO.
You have heard of 'just in time' component supply chains as used by Nissan & Jaguar and many other car manufacturers? Even a very brief customs disruption could effectively halt car production.
I guess the UK could improve it's customs control, increasing the number of officers it employs? Sadly the HMRC is woefully understaffed and completely unprepared - the UK has around 5,000 customs staff, whereas Germany employs more than 35,000.
The UK would also need to open British versions of the EU regulatory agencies - setting up such an organisation for just the aviation industry (the UK equivalent of the European Aviation Safety Agency) is estimated at £400m over a decade.
And that is only one of around 40 such agencies that would be required.
I guess we could just continue to use some of the EU regulators for the UK as now, but that would mean by implication that we'd also be answerable to the EU court of Justice - expressively ruled out in the white paper.
Many of the loonier Brexiteers saw the move as a chance to cut such 'red tape' - TAKING BACK CONTROL! But signing ANY trade deal involves 'give and take' - and that means GIVING UP SOME ELEMENT OF SOVEREIGNTY. A phrase that make some ejit's ears bleed. As a WTO member, we'd have to abide by their rules too - OH NO! Giving up sovereignty to the WORLD!
Oh the hollowness of the 'Taking Back Control!' and 'Oor Sovereignty!' chants.
The UK gives up part of its 'sovereignty' when it applies the EU Safety Directive for TOYS.
On that note, we'd either need to STAY with the EU directive - lose some sovereignty... - or else devise our own. Mind you, if we were then to diverge from the EU standards, British businesses would likely have to manufacture two product lines...
Studies based on detailed customs data estimates that the UK-EU trade will fall by between 13 and 40% post Brexit, depending on the level of market access that is negotiated. Loony Brexiteers are banking on us cushioning this shortfall with new trade deals with the rest of the world.
But such deals take time and diplomatic resources to negotiate, even if only between 2 countries. How do we prioritise? There's China, India, the US.
The sensible first move is with... the EU (GDP similar to the US). Countries have always traded most with their biggest & closest neighbours
Still reading? Good - 'cos I'm nowhere near half-way there.
Still to come:
* The reality of striking direct trade deals with other countries.
* Trade with the UK's services sector, and foreign investment there (Clue - that's 80% of the UK economy - don't light the blue touch paper...)
Hey! I'm tryin'. I'm tryin'!
Thanks, I understand and appreciate.
But IIR said
I would like him to explain his comments, because he obviously has information to back it up?
I know - I was yanking.
If post #9 was a touch 'heavy' here's a summary:
We want – WTO trading deals – but that are the same as we currently have with the EU!
We want – zero tariffs on vehicles and parts – although that is expressly ruled out by WTO rules.
We want – smooooth border controls – but without being in the customs union!
We want – all the safety regulations that we currently have with the EU ‘cos it’s too bludy expensive and will take too long to devise our own – but we don’t want the EU Court of Justice!
We want – to TAKE BACK OOR SOVEREIGNTY! – but every single trade deal that is made will, by implication, mean you will ‘lose’ – hand over - a teeny bit of sovereignty. Always been the case. Always will.
We want - everything to be BETTER! More money! More trade! No job losses! No inflation! No food shortages! NO BLUDY 'GRANTS SPOILING IT FOR US!
All together now – wave your arms in the air: “WE WANT IT ALL! WE WANT IT ALL! WE WANT IT ALL! AND WE WANT IT NOW!”
(Soz - you ain't getting it.)
I knew the chain was being yanked.
But I love the irony of IIR s comments, and I cant wait for the facts and evidence he has to support such statements.
Mind you, I wont hold my breath.
But it does show the level of thought of the brexiteers
Separate names with a comma.