Jump to content

The Consequences of Brexit [part 5] Read 1st post before posting

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, L00b said:

 

Wrong.

 

The U.K. will be free to apply and follow these WTO rules, but there is no guarantee of any reciprocity by any other trading counter-party, until and unless the UK’s quotas and tariff levels are agreed by all other WTO members: any one of them can hold the UK to ransom in Geneva. And the largest already are.

 

This being the reason why a country as obscure and insignificant as Moldova can torpedo the UK’s WTO negotiations (suggest you Google up recent articles about that one, the choice of country in my sentence is not random), as surely as Ireland or Spain can veto the final U.K.-EU deal in 2 years’ time.

 

The U.K. badly needs the EU -one of the top 3 largest kids on that particular block- to have its back in Geneva. Very badly. So here’s an idea: better start being nice ;) 

WTO  RULES are the default position for the UK , if we leave the EU without a deal.  I haven't stated the EU or any other countries will reciprocate anything the UK decide to  do  regarding not implementing tariffs.  It makes more sense for the UK to leave the EU without a deal, not pay 39 billion and cite WTO Article 24 as a reason for continuing to allow goods from the EU not to be charged any tariffs until future trade agreements with the EU are sorted out. Then the UK will be able negotiate trade agreements with countries outside of the EU and forget about the Irish border nonsense.

30 minutes ago, Sidonica said:

The owner of Wetherspoons has told the Daily politics show that if we leave with no deal, nothing will change except for the price of food going down!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He is correct, if the UK decide not implement any tariffs on food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

WTO  RULES are the default position for the UK , if we leave the EU without a deal.  I haven't stated the EU or any other countries will reciprocate anything the UK decide to  do  regarding not implementing tariffs.  It makes more sense for the UK to leave the EU without a deal, not pay 39 billion and cite WTO Article 24 as a reason for continuing to allow goods from the EU not to be charged any tariffs until future trade agreements with the EU are sorted out. Then the UK will be able negotiate trade agreements with countries outside of the EU and forget about the Irish border nonsense.

He is correct, if the UK decide not implement any tariffs on food.

You misunderstand: WTO rules are the default (as in: fit for purpose) only once the UK’s membership situation is regularised.

 

That regularisation is contingent on the U.K. disentangling its tariff-free quotas of goods (all sorts) from those of the EU whilst an EU member.

 

Think of it as, whilst a eg Groupon member, getting the same discount from suppliers as all other Groupon members, based on agreed purchase levels (of the membership as a whole, then split that total figure prorata each member’s purchasing requirements) ; and now, negotiating a new discount with those suppliers for your own purchasing requirements in readiness for when you cease to be a Groupon member. 

 

Until it’s regularised, the UK’s application of WTO rules would be unilateral (of the UK’s own and sole initiative, hoping that trading countries would reciprocate, when they don’t have to: trading with suppliers on the same basis as a Groupon member, hoping to continue benefitting from the same discount as before whilst a Groupon member, but not being one anymore).

 

Until and unless that discount level is agreed with each supplier, that trading would effectively be guided only by the most basic of rule set (eg MFN): it’d be trading on terms to keep the lights on at home, and sacrificing your domestic production capacity in the process, because it cannot hope to compete with the BRICs and others without some measure of insulation (a mix of protectionism and reciprocals balanced for national strengths and capacity, like all FTAs are).

 

Objectively, ’trading on WTO rules’ ranks way up there with the £350m, as a misunderstanding self-perpetuating through ignorance. No one in their right mind, even a strongly parochial one, seriously considers that ‘trading on WTO rules’ is OK, never mind for an advanced service-based economy like the U.K.

 

That is partially (to begin with) because, with reference to the ‘no deal’ predictions long warned about, and eventually confirmed by the government’s own belated preparation notices: there are no provisions whatsoever about airlines, medications, isotopes, finances, professional qualifications, phytosanitary checks <etc> at the WTO. It’s about goods volumes and tariffs, and that’s it.

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, I1L2T3 said:

It’s the complete opposite. It enhances the democratic process.

 

It corrects the mistake in the way that the 2016 referendum was framed. It allows us a campaign free of illegality this time. It exposes the fact that Cameron made false promises, and confirms that governments can’t bind subsequent governments. It also would reaffirm the advisory nature of the referendum.

 

The very definition of democracy focuses on the view of the people now, not on out of date views, and not especially on some kind of mystical idea of the importance of dead voters.

The vote in 2016 was simple stay or leave no mistakes made. It might not have been the result we wanted but that's democracy. And if

we excepted your definition that only the present view counts would nullify the result of future elections. 

Edited by hobinfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People  have less money to spend when the economy is weak. They still want to go out for a treat but have less money. So Wetherspoons - which is at the low-cost end of the pub food market - gets more business.

 

The owner of Wetherspoons wants Brexit because it makes him richer.

 

 

Edited by Flexo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, hobinfoot said:

The vote in 2016 was simple stay or leave no mistakes made. It might not have been the result we wanted but that's democracy. And if

we excepted your definition that only the present view counts would nullify the result of future elections. 

Futrue elections are rerun every 5 years...when's the next EU referendum? If we left do you think that the terms on any re admission,should we vote for it, would be the same,worse,or better than the terms we have now..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hobinfoot said:

The vote in 2016 was simple stay or leave no mistakes made. It might not have been the result we wanted but that's democracy. And if

we excepted your definition that only the present view counts would nullify the result of future elections. 

I do accept it. 

 

In case you you haven’t noticed A50 has been invoked, and the U.K. and EU have been negotiating for two years. That alone indicated that the result has been respected. Nobody can say it hasn’t been, and in the meantime remainers have quietly, patiently protested.

 

But here’s the thing. We now now what the deal is. We know about serious illegality on the leave side. We know about Russian involvement. We now know that we were lied to.

 

Democracy is about the will of the people now, not almost 3 years ago. Things change and we need to move forward based on reality and what is now known. To suggest anything else is an affront to democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Flexo said:

The owner of Wetherspoons wants Brexit because it makes him richer.

 

 

He more or less said that, when asked on Question Time or one of the other political shows during the referendum campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lockdoctor said:

Article 24 has never been implemented  before  and the UK don't have to stay in the transitional period. Of course the EC 27 don't  have to  continue to implement zero tariffs on UK goods.

If they don't, Article 24 cannot be used.

 

2 hours ago, Lockdoctor said:

 

The point of Article 24 is the UK would be free to treat the EU differently regarding tariffs from the rest of the World for up to 10  years.

Again, this isn't possible without the consent of the EU27. The interim would involve keeping FoM, EU budget contributions, and ECJ jurisdiction.

 

2 hours ago, Lockdoctor said:

Leaving the EU without a deal is the only option which doesn't  involve kicking the can down the road.

Nah, that's binning the can.

 

Again, no-deal was not a Brexit that anyone campaigned for, if it had been it's debatable whether leave would have won. I say no chance.

45 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

But here’s the thing. We now now what the deal is.

Indeed, if you agree to buy a Ferarri, then it turns out it's actually a Skoda... is it really right that you should still be forced to buy it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

Democracy is about the will of the people now, not almost 3 years ago. 

No democracy is about the will of parliament who are our democratic representatives, and not the will of the people and that is where people get it wrong.

7 minutes ago, Magilla said:

Again, no-deal was not a Brexit that anyone campaigned for, if it had been it's debatable whether leave would have won. I say no chance.

What was campaigned for is immaterial as the choices were clear on the ballot paper for all to read. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, apelike said:

No democracy is about the will of parliament who are our democratic representatives, and not the will of the people and that is where people get it wrong.

What was campaigned for is immaterial as the choices were clear on the ballot paper for all to read. 

So the will of the people in 2016 doesn't count then?

Edited by truman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Flexo said:

People  have less money to spend when the economy is weak. They still want to go out for a treat but have less money. So Wetherspoons - which is at the low-cost end of the pub food market - gets more business.

 

The owner of Wetherspoons wants Brexit because it makes him richer.

 

 

I really can't see prices dropping to be honest it wasn't that long ago Tim Martin said prices were going up in his chain. If an no deal Brexit  happens and chaos follows it will hit his business and others too if the pound drops to low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, truman said:

So the will of the peoploe in 2016 doesn't count then?

What do you class as the will of the people? They voted in a referendum which as been pointed out on may occasions was also advisory.

Edited by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.