The Brexit aftermath thread

[Pann]

No, you took exception to the statement that the "stance had not changed" by claiming it did not exist previously.
The part about it not have been finalised was only brought up by you later in an attempt to weasel out.

Please do not accuse others of lying when you cannot keep track of your own posts.

I wouldn't say that I took exception, I pointed out that the EU's stance had not yet been finalised (which was what we were discussing) nor did I claim that it did not exist previously - again you are lying - STOP IT!

My first response to GoblinP's post was to state that EU were meeting later that day to finalise their stance - so that's more lies.

[Noradin]

Did you not notice that bit in bold is part of a larger sentence? And the second part of the sentence, which you have omitted, clearly contradicts what you are claiming I wrote.

It clearly does not, which is why I felt no need to bold it when I first commented on it.
Please note that I commented on it, I didn't claim you were wrong, I merely shifted the focus a bit.

- - - Updated - - -

I wouldn't say that I took exception, I pointed out that the EU's stance had not yet been finalised (which was what we were discussing) nor did I claim that it did not exist previously - again you are lying - STOP IT!

My first response to GoblinP's post was to state that EU were meeting later that day to finalise their stance - so that's more lies.

So when we throw your own words back in your face that is lies?
Please stop making false accusations.

[Pann]

Good for you, me too. So you will know, as I, that you do not need a trade agreement to trade with another country. Again what is wrong with WTO rules? If you are in the UK exporting you got to love that £ devaluation vs the Euro hey? Pretty much negates any future tariffs the EU might want to impose under WTO and some. I've never had it so good, order books full to brimming and as an exporter like you I guess we both must have Brexit to thank for that. You don't come across as a supporter though, why would you want anything else other than WTO if the alternative costs billions in Danegeld? No one can think of anything? Not one international businessman on here?

Thought so.

I am not involved with exporting so my knowledge is somewhat limited but if WTO rules are so good why do nations bother with FTAs?

[Huehuecoyotl]

Good for you, me too. So you will know, as I, that you do not need a trade agreement to trade with another country. Again what is wrong with WTO rules? If you are in the UK exporting you got to love that £ devaluation vs the Euro hey? Pretty much negates any future tariffs the EU might want to impose under WTO and some. I've never had it so good, order books full to brimming and as an exporter like you I guess we both must have Brexit to thank for that. You don't come across as a supporter though, why would you want anything else other than WTO if the alternative costs billions in Danegeld? No one can think of anything? Not one international businessman on here?

Thought so.

At least that explains why you are so keen on Brexit. It's the "I'm alright Jack" syndrome. You don't care if it undermines workers rights, or takes away enrironmental protections. You see it as a great chance to make more money for yourself.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[dribbles]

I am not involved with exporting so my knowledge is somewhat limited but if WTO rules are so good why do nations bother with FTAs?

Well of course FTA's are better, if there is goodwill and a willingness on both sides much can be achieved - but not at the expense of billions and many other extraneous conditions that have nothing to do with trade. Hopefully one day the EU will get over itself and not be so butthurt that a member wants to leave its very expensive club.

[Pann]

It clearly does not, which is why I felt no need to bold it when I first commented on it.
Please note that I commented on it, I didn't claim you were wrong, I merely shifted the focus a bit.

The worrying thing is that I think you are actually serious. My post is right there and I've even explained it to you, more than once, yet you still claim that I implied something I did not. Pathetic!

So when we throw your own words back in your face that is lies?
Please stop making false accusations.

You haven't thrown my words back at me. You've claimed I've said something that I did not despite the fact I have clarified this, for the hard of thinking, on more than one occasion.

- - - Updated - - -

Well of course FTA's are better, if there is goodwill and a willingness on both sides much can be achieved - but not at the expense of billions and many other extraneous conditions that have nothing to do with trade. Hopefully one day the EU will get over itself and not be so butthurt that a member wants to leave its very expensive club.

Right? So, WTO rules are not so great then? Obviously EU membership, like all things, has advantages and disadvantages but how would the advantages of UK defaulting to WTO rules outweigh the disadvantages of EU membership or any of the proposals put forward?

[Noradin]

The worrying thing is that I think you are actually serious. My post is right there and I've even explained it to you, more than once, yet you still claim that I implied something I did not. Pathetic!

I do not claim you implied it, I pointed out that your post should not be taken that way.

- - - Updated - - -

You haven't thrown my words back at me. You've claimed I've said something that I did not despite the fact I have clarified this, for the hard of thinking, on more than one occasion.

You make personal insults (which is against forum rules, but apparently you standard modus oparandi).
I pointed you to the parts of your posts you seem to have lost track of.

[Pann]

At least that explains why you are so keen on Brexit. It's the "I'm alright Jack" syndrome. You don't care if it undermines workers rights, or takes away enrironmental protections. You see it as a great chance to make more money for yourself.

Thanks for clearing that up.

To be honest I don't think it is unreasonable for people to vote in the direction that benefits their personal circumstances.

- - - Updated - - -

I do not claim you implied it, I pointed out that your post should not be taken that way.

You wrote; "That makes it sound like the UK has the option to just keep the terms it had while in the EU." No-one else seems to have taken my post that way, probably because it does not imply what you claim it does and directly contradicts this, non-existent, implication.

You make personal insults (which is against forum rules, but apparently you standard modus oparandi).
I pointed you to the parts of your posts you seem to have lost track of.

You are repeatedly making false claims! What part of my posts have I lost track of? Perhaps I have lost track of these parts because I did not post them and they exist only in your head?

[dribbles]

Right? So, WTO rules are not so great then? Obviously EU membership, like all things, has advantages and disadvantages but how would the advantages of UK defaulting to WTO rules outweigh the disadvantages of EU membership or any of the proposals put forward?

WTO rules are perfectly fine, we already trade under mfn status with much of the world as we will with the EU. The only real surcharge which might hit us a bit is the expensive 10% tariff on our car exports - but that works the other way on inbound EU cars to the UK. One side will hurt more than the other.

Also the good thing about WTO is that with the EU so salty about the UK leaving any additional penalties cannot be imposed upon UK goods unless they are willing to place the same penalty on Chinese goods, US goods etc.

Oh yeah there was that Trump thing about future possible US/EU trade problems due to imbalance and the way they are heading it's not looking rosy with the UK. I can't understand why they have wasted the last 18 months refusing to talk about trade. Don't they know the clock is ticking?

The EU will end up not being able to trade with anyone if they are not careful. Good job we are leaving and about to save billions tbh.

[Noradin]

You wrote; "That makes it sound like the UK has the option to just keep the terms it had while in the EU." No-one else seems to have taken my post that way, probably because it does not imply what you claim it does and directly contradicts this, non-existent, implication.



You are repeatedly making false claims! What part of my posts have I lost track of? Perhaps I have lost track of these parts because I did not post them and they exist only in your head?

Or, no one else felt the need to repeat what I had already written?

And no, I make no false claims, I provide quotes for them. And I'm not the only one who took your posts that way.
You are the one constantly feeling attacked, then responding with calling others slow and accusing them of lying.

Maybe you should think about why you are reacting this way when others do not?
Also, please read the forum rules and keep to them. Personal insults are not allowed.

[Pann]

WTO rules are perfectly fine, we already trade under mfn status with much of the world as we will with the EU. The only real surcharge which might hit us a bit is the expensive 10% tariff on our car exports - but that works the other way on inbound EU cars to the UK. One side will hurt more than the other.

Also the good thing about WTO is that with the EU so salty about the UK leaving any additional penalties cannot be imposed upon UK goods unless they are willing to place the same penalty on Chinese goods, US goods etc.

Oh yeah there was that Trump thing about future possible US/EU trade problems due to imbalance and the way they are heading it's not looking rosy with the UK. I can't understand why they have wasted the last 18 months refusing to talk about trade. Don't they know the clock is ticking?

The EU will end up not being able to trade with anyone if they are not careful. Good job we are leaving and about to save billions tbh.

It seems to me, but I might wrong, that WTO rules are a starting point and perfectly fine for smaller trader partners but a FTA will always be better. Surely since we import more than we export it will be us that are hit harder by higher tariffs?

I don't see any indication that the EU intends to levy punitive tariffs on the UK post Brexit.

- - - Updated - - -

WTO rules are certainly getting better. Of course if there is any true issue that requires arbitration, it may take decades for results from arbitration (while the ECJ is vastly more efficient). More importantly WTO rules largely do not define relations, they establish frameworks of understanding. E.g. there is a common understanding that tariffs should stay as they are and slowly be removed. The rules do not at all cover product standardization (the TFA includes guidelines on standards and the presentation of standards). Also, celebrating your currency deflating when you are an importing nation is inane. The issue of course is that outside the negotiating might of the EU certain protectionist measures that all states employ to some extent might be hit by arbitration requests if a partner considers them unfair practice. And of course when it comes to quotas in primary production, the UK will need to have its own team negotiating those (since especially for agriculture export quotas are negotiated constantly).
Services are not at all covered; TiSA has a fairly comprehensive framework but it is unlikely that it will easily be accepted because of extreme privacy concerns (it requires the duplication of financial information on a massive scale from all signatories and I doubt the EU at the very least will agree to it; the people will be pissed when they find out about it after all); and of course the UK is not even part of those negotiations but only as part of the EU which means they will have to make claims anew while the EU may abandon several positions they used to hold to mostly favor UK service trading since they no longer have to represent British interests.

That's an informative post - thanks.

[dribbles]

It seems to me, but I might wrong, that WTO rules are a starting point and perfectly fine for smaller trader partners but a FTA will always be better. Surely since we import more than we export it will be us that are hit harder by higher tariffs?

I don't see any indication that the EU intends to levy punitive tariffs on the UK post Brexit.

Not at all, caring compassionate brexiteers know that food, clothing and shoes imported from outside the EU attract punitive tariffs that inflate the price of these most basic of goods hitting the very poorest in society. Once we have left these EU tariffs can be abolished providing a very nice brucie brexit bonus to the most vulnerable in society. Even the poor win with Brexit, yet nasty remainers want to stay in the EU and punish the very people who need help the most.

For the many not the few!

[Pann]

The only measure that will feel punitive is that the ECB will demand certain transactions receive additional authorization before they are cleared for security and stability concerns. This will mean that clearance time will be increased and thus make Euro-clearing through the City more expensive in both fees and time. Inevitably despite London's hard earned efficiencies, it will be cheaper to clear Euro within the EU and thus some of the financial services will leave London for Paris or Frankfurt.

I must admit that I am not overly familiar with the subject but from what I have read, although this was a while ago so may be out of date, the current proposals are to alter EU law to give the European Securities and Market Authority the power to assess the risk of overseas clearing houses. It is worth noting these proposals will not go unnoticed by the US, whose own clearing houses would be subject to increased vetting, and they may be resistant to increased regulation.

[Deleted]

Here you are dribbles this is from LEAVEHQ

The WTO Option is an approach to Brexit much favoured by some groupings. It is an approach where the UK leaves the EU without having negotiated any trade agreements with the EU, either within the framework of Article 50 negotiations, or on the margins. Instead, it relies entirely on multilateral WTO agreements covering trade-related matters.


The general thrust of the WTO Option argument is that: "Were the UK to leave the EU, it would continue to have access to the EU's markets, as World Trade Organisation rules prevent the EU from imposing unfair, punitive tariffs on UK exports". In reality, the WTO rules only afford very limited protection against discrimination, and then only in respect of tariffs - which are no longer central to trade matters.


As the WTO site itself says, "by their very nature RTAs (Regional Trade Agreements — as is the EU) are discriminatory", and, under WTO rules, an amount of discrimination against third countries (and that would include the UK) is permitted. The WTO observes:

Modern RTAs, and not exclusively those linking the most developed economies, tend to go far beyond tariff-cutting exercises. They provide for increasingly complex regulations governing intra-trade (e.g. with respect to standards, safeguard provisions, customs administration, etc.) and they often also provide for a preferential regulatory framework for mutual services trade. The most sophisticated RTAs go beyond traditional trade policy mechanisms, to include regional rules on investment, competition, environment and labour.

The crunch issue here is the "preferential regulatory framework". Unless goods seeking entrance to the EU Single Market (i.e. British exports) conform to the regulations which comprise the framework, they are not permitted entry. Thus, the assertion that, if the UK left the EU, "it would continue to have access to the EU's markets …", is simply not true. And ,  to spell it out,  if it's not true, it's false.


With or without tariff issues being resolved ,  which are actually irrelevant to the access issue , the claim is false. Tariffs do not prevent access to a market. They simply impose a tax on entry. The actual barrier is the regulatory conformity,  what is known generally as a non-tariff barrier (NTB) or, sometimes, as technical barrier to trade (TBT).


Nevertheless, it is generally recognised that, in order to access the Single Market, goods must comply with EU rules. Conformity is the way of overcoming the NTB. But what advocates of the WTO option have not realised is that there is more to it than that . Much more. Potential exporters not only have to ensure their goods conform, they must provide evidence of their so doing. This requires putting the goods through a recognised system of what is known as "conformity assessment".


We are at this point entering serious nerd territory. If your eyes are beginning to glaze over, all we can say is welcome to the world as it really is. It has taken years of mind-numbing, tedious study to understand this amount of detail, and either you know it, or you don't. If you don't, you are going to make serious mistakes. And that is just what the WTO Option advocates have done. In a moment we’ll see why their mistakes are not so much serious as catastrophic.


And, for all that, the fundamentals are quite simple. The point about the Single Market is that border checks have been eliminated. The common rules are monitored by relevant national authorities and there is mutual recognition of standards. Thus, if you so desire, you can load a truck with grommets in Glasgow and ship them all the way to Alexandroupoli on the Turkish border, with just the occasional document check.


But the moment we leave the EU, this stops. Your component manufacturer may still comply with exactly the same standards, but if the product requires independent testing , any testing houses and the regulatory agencies are no longer recognised. The consignment has no valid paperwork. And, without it, it must be subject to border checks, visual inspection and physical testing.


What that means in practice is that the customs inspector detains your shipment and takes samples to send to an approved testing house (one for the inspector, one for the office pool, one for the stevedores and one for the lab is often the case). Your container inspection is typically about £700 and detention costs about £80 a day for the ten days or so it will take to get your results back. Add the testing fee and you’re paying an extra £2,000 to deliver a container into the EU.


Apart from the costs, the delays are highly damaging. Many European industries have highly integrated supply chains, relying on components shipped from multiple countries right across Europe, working to a "just in time" regime. If even a small number of consignments are delayed, the whole system starts to snarl up.


Then, as European ports start having to deal with the unexpected burden of thousands of inspections, and a backlog of testing as a huge range of products sit at the ports awaiting results, the system will grind to a halt. It won't just slow down. It will stop. Trucks waiting to cross the Channel at Dover will be backed up the motorway all the way to London.


For animal products exported to the EU, the situation is even worse — if that is possible. Products from third countries (which is now the UK) are permitted entry only through Border Inspection Posts (BIPs). Only at these can they be inspected and, if necessary, detained for testing. But, for trade between the UK and EU member states, the capacity of BIP is entirely inadequate. Until more capacity has been provided, trade in these products stops dead — say goodbye to a £9 billion export trade.


If the way out of the country becomes blocked, very quickly the return route gets blocked and incoming trade from the EU starts suffering. In the UK, goods from the EU are no longer delivered. Trade slows. Manufacturers which depend on imported components start struggling and then have to close. And while the naysayers talk about losing three million jobs if we leave the EU, we are looking at twice that and more — seven or eight million jobs are at stake.


At this point, you might say, “But how can this possibly happen?”


The WTO Option advocates will tell you that countries such as China, the United States and Australia all trade with the EU without formal trade agreements, and therefore operate under WTO rules. They don't have these problems so why would the UK? The answer, however, is remarkably simple. These countries don't rely solely on WTO rules.


What the WTO Option advocates have done is make a very basic but fatal mistake. They’re so obsessed with tariffs, they haven’t begun to focus on non-tariff barriers. Thus, by and large, they are only looking at trade agreements dealing with tariffs — a sub-set of international agreements which are registered with the WTO. But there are many different types of agreement and many which involve trade, either directly or indirectly, which are not registered with the WTO. These, for our WTO Option advocates, remain under the radar. To them, they are invisible.


Yet one of the most important types of trade agreement is the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) on conformity assessment. This gets round the problem of border checks, as the EU will then recognise the paperwork on product testing and conformity certification. Throw in an agreement on Customs cooperation — to ensure that official paperwork and systems mesh — and you are on your way to trouble-free border crossings.


China has a Mutual Recognition Agreement on Economic Operators, signed in May 2014, the United States has one on conformity assessment which runs to 81 pages, agreed in 1999. Australia has one on conformity assessment.


All of these are outside the remit of the WTO but they are nonetheless trade agreements, and vital ones at that. But look then what the think-tank Global Britain — another WTO Option advocate — is doing. "As an example", it writes, "Australia has no trade agreement with the EU…". It then goes on to cite an EU web page, which actually tells us:

The EU and Australia conduct their trade and economic relations under the EU-Australia Partnership Framework of October 2008. This aims, apart from cooperation on the multilateral trade system and trade in services and investment issues, to facilitate trade in industrial products between the EU and Australia by reducing technical barriers, including conformity assessment procedures.

What is the EU-Australia Partnership Framework, if not (inter alia) a trade agreement? In the detail, it sets the framework for the all-important MRA on conformity assessment. One MRA runs to 110 pages, with an amendment running to a further 20 pages.


There are, in fact, 82 agreements between the EU and Australia, of which 18 are bilateral. There are 65 between the EU and China, of which 13 are bilateral. Between the EU and the United States, there are 135, of which 55 are bilateral. As regards trading agreements, not only is Global Britain incorrect in its assertions, its authors apparently don’t even read their own reports.


Such is the importance of agreements such as the MRAs that the UK would have no option but to seek a deal with the EU, for which there is a facility within Article 50. But, the moment it sought such deals, it would no longer be relying exclusively on WTO rules. It would now be seeking bilateral agreements along the lines of the so-called "Swiss option". This comes with as many problems as the WTO Option, if not more, not least the length of time it would take to agree a Swiss-type arrangement (10 years or more?)…And that's assuming the EU wants another complex Swiss-type arrangement, which it doesn't.


One can say, unequivocally, that the UK could not survive as a trading nation by relying on the WTO Option. It would be an unmitigated disaster, and no responsible government should allow it. The option should be rejected.

[Pann]

Not at all, caring compassionate brexiteers know that food, clothing and shoes imported from outside the EU attract punitive tariffs that inflate the price of these most basic of goods hitting the very poorest in society. Once we have left these EU tariffs can be abolished providing a very nice brucie brexit bonus to the most vulnerable in society. Even the poor win with Brexit, yet nasty remainers want to stay in the EU and punish the very people who need help the most.

For the many not the few!

Aren't the tariffs on food designed to protect EU farmers, including our own? If we reduced tariffs on food wouldn't we in the position of either subsidising our farmers thus potentially negating any savings or risk putting them out of business and the UK becoming even more reliant on other countries to fulfil its need for food?

Are tariffs on clothing a major issue? How much of a difference would reducing tariffs make to, say, a three quid t-shirt from George? Or a pair of £100 trainers that are produced for a tenner by child labour in some Asian sweatshop?

[Noradin]

I must admit that I am not overly familiar with the subject but from what I have read, although this was a while ago so may be out of date, the current proposals are to alter EU law to give the European Securities and Market Authority the power to assess the risk of overseas clearing houses. It is worth noting these proposals will not go unnoticed by the US, whose own clearing houses would be subject to increased vetting, and they may be resistant to increased regulation.

Yes, these changes where championed by the UK to improve London's competetiveness over New York.

[Pann]

Excellent points from Phillip Lee; https://twitter.com/DrPhillipLeeMP/s...itics-42884610

[dribbles]

Here you are dribbles this is from LEAVEHQ

Well that's a bit of a read providing a mountain out of a mole hill of worst case scenarios, but the reality is that legally with a willing seller and a willing buyer there is very little governments, including the Brussels one, can do to prevent that trade limited by the protections of international law.

Forgetting tariffs and with current UK equivalence to EU standards sudden spurious trade restrictions imposed by Brussels as punishment would quickly attract legal challenges, damages sought and be seen for what they are - the beginnings of a trade war. If, for example, the EU want special warehouses and a laboratory to check that UK exports of ping pong balls are round enough the UK will reciprocate with EU to UK ping pong imports with the obvious delays and collapse of the just in time supply process. That would be stupid for everyone.

The EU is in a very precarious position already with the US over its protectionist trade imbalance, only a whisker away from sanctioned US trade and they really will not want to start a trade war on top with the UK. That would be just stupid.

The UK has offered the EU a take it or leave it sensible FTA post brexit, but the EU are refusing after they wasted 18 months to even start discussions on trade. I wish they knew what they wanted. Whatever, default WTO it will be. They want a trade war on top? - they got it.

The EU should be careful how quickly things can escalate beyond even that.

Aren't the tariffs on food designed to protect EU farmers, including our own? If we reduced tariffs on food wouldn't we in the position of either subsidising our farmers thus potentially negating any savings or risk putting them out of business and the UK becoming even more reliant on other countries to fulfil its need for food?

Are tariffs on clothing a major issue? How much of a difference would reducing tariffs make to, say, a three quid t-shirt from George? Or a pair of £100 trainers that are produced for a tenner by child labour in some Asian sweatshop?

All of the EU is about protectionist abolishment of free trade competition and we already subsidise our farmers with our own money, albeit routed via the EU first so they can take their cut out before returning less of it to us. Brexit is just cutting out the parasitic EU middle man so our farmers can have more of our own money.

As for wether a t-shirt costs 3 or 4 quid, you are obviously lucky enough for that not to matter, but to the poorest in society every penny counts.

Brexit, for the many not the few.

Excellent points from Phillip Lee; https://twitter.com/DrPhillipLeeMP/s...itics-42884610

Not that buzzfeed thing again lol? Bad modelling with predictions for 15 years into the future can produce any economic figures you want. I could give you some of my own just as likely to be right and just as valid. I always used to be a bit of a fan of mystic meg too.

[Deleted]

The fact that Guardian does not know exactly what is going to happen in the future does not make them uninformed.

I will try this one more time.

Anyone who was remotely clued in knew in advance exactly what was going to happen -

We were talking about a future event and how it might affect the potential rebellion within the Con party, you then interrupted claiming that the EU "haven't" (past tense) changed their stance. I pointed out that the event we were discussing was in the future and therefore we could not know if this was the case.

The problem is that both the EU and UK want to cause as little damage to each other as possible but the harder the EU's stance more it plays into the, so called, Hard Brexit supporters' hands which would be damaging for both of us.

And i said that it's not harder - Or softer - I said it was Fixed.

It may well be the case that you have access to working a crystal ball and become confused with what has or has not happened or, maybe, you worked as linguist with two aliens named Abbott and Costello and now see time in a non-linear fashion but for those of us who still work on linear time knowing the future with all certainty is simply not possible!

No see it's because i have read the relevant texts, Like the picture i linked.
It's not terribly complicated to predict this.

No. It. Is. Not. It is clear and even mentions in the text you have quoted (I have highlighted this in bold to help you) is that the issue is that records going back longer than 15 years do not exist.

You do get that even if they did go back more than 15 years, you have redistricting problems?
And in either fucking case, That still makes my point.
As a Swede to maintain my voting rights, I have to tell the government where i live and that i'm alive once every 10 years that is all - There is no need to assign me a voting district, because those are administrative, not electoral.

I mean a little research showed me that the number of years an expatriate had to be away to be denied overseas voter status used to be 20 and then was reduced a few decades ago. Many countries actually welcome all expatriates voting. I guess they should not stay British citizens then.

It's not that British people hate the deserting traitors who leave the country - It's that they have FPTP voting (Something Greece doesn't have) Which makes it more complicated than if you have plurality voting, not impossible, - (by the way, Greece, does have expatriate voting, but no mail voting making it rather complicated to in practice vote, or so my brief googling has informed me).
Are you happy with this now?
Because that is all my claim was, that FPTP voting makes extending voting rights to expatriates harder.

[Slant]

Not at all, caring compassionate brexiteers know that food, clothing and shoes imported from outside the EU attract punitive tariffs that inflate the price of these most basic of goods hitting the very poorest in society. Once we have left these EU tariffs can be abolished providing a very nice brucie brexit bonus to the most vulnerable in society. Even the poor win with Brexit, yet nasty remainers want to stay in the EU and punish the very people who need help the most.

For the many not the few!

You're literally quoting the motto of the EU. The same EU that is working on trade agreements with China to benefit us all. Good luck trying that on your own and fighting an honest fight against the Chinese labour market. You know, the same one that shits on work safety and extortion of labour force. You'll lose jobs faster than you can unpack those crates of cheap ass Chinese goods that cost less labour cost than resources.