|
Post by GreaterGlasgowstokie on Nov 15, 2020 9:30:02 GMT
Australia have just done a trade deal with their closest partners. A 15 nation partnership accounting for a third of global output. Why don’t we do something similar with our closest partners in the EU. Now the vote leave fraudsters have left number 10, perhaps Johnson will see some sense and not intentionally kick the nation whilst we are down. Of course, any deal we strike with the EU is going to massively hurt us all, but let’s at least limit the damage and avoid no deal. 4 and a half years after the brexit vote and we still do not know what the leave vote was for! The lack of democracy is astounding. Does any of the trade deals Australia have just signed give any of those countries any judicial control or interference over the Australian justice system Does the for mentioned deal give any of the countries a direct say on how or to whom the Australian government can spend its tax payers money on Maybe I’m assuming wrongly that the answer is no I’m sure you will happily correct me And of course if the answer is no it is just another example to prove the Eu is acting unreasonable What laws in particular do you want control of?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 15, 2020 9:34:36 GMT
Does any of the trade deals Australia have just signed give any of those countries any judicial control or interference over the Australian justice system Does the for mentioned deal give any of the countries a direct say on how or to whom the Australian government can spend its tax payers money on Maybe I’m assuming wrongly that the answer is no I’m sure you will happily correct me And of course if the answer is no it is just another example to prove the Eu is acting unreasonable What laws in particular do you want control of? Shouldn't really need to ask the question
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 15, 2020 9:49:06 GMT
Who is Bloomberg, another lefty poncy twat? Saying apparently that by the end of the year brexit will have cost us almost as much as the entire amount of all of our EU contributions since we joined in 1973. I would be very interested to read the evidence on how such costs have been incurred. When I have posted about the net cost of EU membership, I have had comments from Europhiles that the cost is minimal compared to GDP and the benefits of membership. I have yet to see a proper breakdown of the financial benefits of membership. All I see is a massive trading deficit with the EU of over a £billion per week. There is a presumption by Europhiles that we are only able to trade with the EU because we are members, whereas in reality Germany's largest export market is to the USA and their biggest import partner is China. There are the constant lies that the EU have funded projects in the UK, particularly Scotland, whereas in reality it is simply giving some of the UK's contribution back. I have posted on here before that it would be a good thing for the UK to join TPP. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnershipwww.gov.uk/government/news/uk-takes-major-step-towards-membership-of-trans-pacific-free-trade-areaUnfortunately the TPP took a step backwards under Trump's administration, when it chose to leave the TPP as part of Trump's isolationist stance and complaint that the USA funds many world organizations like WHO and NATO, while other countries are not paying their share. Maybe under Biden there is a way that the USA and hopefully the UK can join the TPP.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 15, 2020 9:55:06 GMT
Australia have just done a trade deal with their closest partners. A 15 nation partnership accounting for a third of global output. Why don’t we do something similar with our closest partners in the EU. Now the vote leave fraudsters have left number 10, perhaps Johnson will see some sense and not intentionally kick the nation whilst we are down. Of course, any deal we strike with the EU is going to massively hurt us all, but let’s at least limit the damage and avoid no deal. 4 and a half years after the brexit vote and we still do not know what the leave vote was for! The lack of democracy is astounding. Does any of the trade deals Australia have just signed give any of those countries any judicial control or interference over the Australian justice system Does the for mentioned deal give any of the countries a direct say on how or to whom the Australian government can spend its tax payers money on Maybe I’m assuming wrongly that the answer is no I’m sure you will happily correct me And of course if the answer is no it is just another example to prove the Eu is acting unreasonable Yes as there will be a dispute mechanism that will be binding on Australia, as with other international treaties. There may well be commitments by the nations who are signatories to spend tax payers money on specific things. Again, very common in trade deals. You do realise trade deals usually deal with things like social security and eligibility for benefits, right? Limiting state aid contributions (something we don’t maximise anyway) seems only to prevent the government in doing a deal with the EU. It didn’t prevent us agreeing a deal limiting state aid with Japan for example. Strange. You do know a no deal brexit just means we will almost certainly still sign a deal with the EU. There will be a deal eventually. We will just have less power to negotiate once the transition period ends and once Biden ignores us. Meanwhile foreign investment will drop off a cliff edge (already dropped off by a third) because the reason to invest here is our access to the single market. See Japanese investment in the 80s. I’m glad I don’t live in Kent. You chose to vote to make it the toilet of England.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 15, 2020 10:07:03 GMT
What laws in particular do you want control of? Shouldn't really need to ask the question But they do The one thing remainers continually fail to recognise /accept is that to many brexit supporters its sovereignty that matters
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 15, 2020 10:13:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 15, 2020 10:14:12 GMT
Shouldn't really need to ask the question But they do The one thing remainers continually fail to recognise /accept is that to many brexit supporters its sovereignty that matters I think Remainers do very much recognise that. It's about the only thing that Brexiteers have to cling to these days.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 15, 2020 10:15:36 GMT
Many brexiteers seem to think covid doesn’t exist and the damage caused by brexit doesn’t exist. There’s a theme. I would be interested in a study looking at brexiteers, covid deniers and anti vaxxers and see if there is much correlation between the three.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 15, 2020 10:20:03 GMT
Shouldn't really need to ask the question But they do The one thing remainers continually fail to recognise /accept is that to many brexit supporters its sovereignty that matters And leaving the eu makes us less sovereign. Every international treaty surrenders sovereignty and nowhere does not enter into international treaties (north korea aside). As the (formerly) second largest economy in the EU and the (former) main ally of the US, we had a massive sway. Now we are insignificant. So will bow to what the larger more powerful nations want, or go without. Brexiteers are surrendering our sovereignty. Anyway, it’s irrelevant whether we are sovereign or not when our leader and his aides ignore the rule of law. What's the point of setting your own rules if they don’t apply to the elite?
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 15, 2020 10:20:58 GMT
Many brexiteers seem to think covid doesn’t exist and the damage caused by brexit doesn’t exist. There’s a theme. I would be interested in a study looking at brexiteers, covid deniers and anti vaxxers and see if there is much correlation between the three. Yes, I've suspected that correlation too. I'd be surprised if there wasn't one.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 15, 2020 10:23:22 GMT
But they do The one thing remainers continually fail to recognise /accept is that to many brexit supporters its sovereignty that matters And leaving the eu makes us less sovereign. Every international treaty surrenders sovereignty and nowhere does not enter into international treaties (north korea aside). As the (formerly) second largest economy and the (former) main ally of the US, we had a massive sway. Now we are insignificant. So will bow to what the larger more powerful nations want, or go without. Brexiteers are surrendering our sovereignty. Anyway, it’s irrelevant whether we are sovereign or not when our leader and his aides ignore the rule of law. What's the point of setting your own rules if they don’t apply to the elite? And why would anyone entering into any subsequent agreement or treaty believe that the UK government will abide by it? Which is ironic given that some on here consider that deliberate ignoring of treaty conditions is by and large a 'foreign' trait!
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 15, 2020 10:29:28 GMT
Many brexiteers seem to think covid doesn’t exist and the damage caused by brexit doesn’t exist. There’s a theme. I would be interested in a study looking at brexiteers, covid deniers and anti vaxxers and see if there is much correlation between the three. 😁 You truly are on your way to becoming a parody Well I consider myself one of the fiercest brexit supporters on here But one thing is certain covid does exist Oh and yes I’ll have the vaccine As for the economic damage of brexit we will have to wait and see if it happens how deep and for how long But pardon me if I don’t believe a word coming from the economists that predicted the economy would collapse the minute we voted leave
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 15, 2020 10:54:56 GMT
Many brexiteers seem to think covid doesn’t exist and the damage caused by brexit doesn’t exist. There’s a theme. I would be interested in a study looking at brexiteers, covid deniers and anti vaxxers and see if there is much correlation between the three. 😁 You truly are on your way to becoming a parody Well I consider myself one of the fiercest brexit supporters on here But one thing is certain covid does exist Oh and yes I’ll have the vaccine As for the economic damage of brexit we will have to wait and see if it happens how deep and for how long But pardon me if I don’t believe a word coming from the economists that predicted the economy would collapse the minute we voted leave Please ensure you understand the difference between the word “many” and the word “all”. The economic damage of brexit has been pretty bad so far and we are still under the same rules. It doesn’t take anyone remotely smart to understand that ripping up every trade deal you are a signatory to will damage the economy. What’s even worse, and truly unforgivable, is promising the world and delivering nothing, which is what this government have done. Compounded by giving businesses around 6 weeks, including the Christmas period, to adapt to potential new rules that we don’t know about yet, and failing to ensure every business is properly informed for what happens in the event of no deal. This whilst people are struggling to put food on the table and we have an employment crisis and health crisis. Anyone with an ounce of sense would delay for 6 months so at least we can recover a bit from the health and employment crisis. But no doubt the government will seek to persuade everyone that covid is responsible for the brexit issues that will arise. If only leave voters had considered they were voting to authorise our government to legislate to make them above the law! Sovereignty requires the rules of law, else it is pointless.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 15, 2020 13:12:21 GMT
Does any of the trade deals Australia have just signed give any of those countries any judicial control or interference over the Australian justice system Does the for mentioned deal give any of the countries a direct say on how or to whom the Australian government can spend its tax payers money on Maybe I’m assuming wrongly that the answer is no I’m sure you will happily correct me And of course if the answer is no it is just another example to prove the Eu is acting unreasonable Yes as there will be a dispute mechanism that will be binding on Australia, as with other international treaties. There may well be commitments by the nations who are signatories to spend tax payers money on specific things. Again, very common in trade deals. You do realise trade deals usually deal with things like social security and eligibility for benefits, right? Limiting state aid contributions (something we don’t maximise anyway) seems only to prevent the government in doing a deal with the EU. It didn’t prevent us agreeing a deal limiting state aid with Japan for example. Strange. You do know a no deal brexit just means we will almost certainly still sign a deal with the EU. There will be a deal eventually. We will just have less power to negotiate once the transition period ends and once Biden ignores us. Meanwhile foreign investment will drop off a cliff edge (already dropped off by a third) because the reason to invest here is our access to the single market. See Japanese investment in the 80s. I’m glad I don’t live in Kent. You chose to vote to make it the toilet of England. It amazes me that you can draw a parallel between a trade treaty, where clearly there are membership rules, and the EU which has a Commission drawing up rules towards ever closer union, running rings round the European Council of Ministers, a European parliament, which, pre-pandemic, jumps backwards and forwards between Brussels and Strasbourg, a Court of Justice to enforce European state rules, and European Central bank, a European Court of Auditors ( ), a European External Action Service, and where there is clear intent to move to a common European currency, and army, foreign policy, etc., etc. Of course there will be deal with the EU, look at the trade balance with the EU, they would be mad not to want one.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 15, 2020 17:45:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 15, 2020 17:53:24 GMT
Yes as there will be a dispute mechanism that will be binding on Australia, as with other international treaties. There may well be commitments by the nations who are signatories to spend tax payers money on specific things. Again, very common in trade deals. You do realise trade deals usually deal with things like social security and eligibility for benefits, right? Limiting state aid contributions (something we don’t maximise anyway) seems only to prevent the government in doing a deal with the EU. It didn’t prevent us agreeing a deal limiting state aid with Japan for example. Strange. You do know a no deal brexit just means we will almost certainly still sign a deal with the EU. There will be a deal eventually. We will just have less power to negotiate once the transition period ends and once Biden ignores us. Meanwhile foreign investment will drop off a cliff edge (already dropped off by a third) because the reason to invest here is our access to the single market. See Japanese investment in the 80s. I’m glad I don’t live in Kent. You chose to vote to make it the toilet of England. It amazes me that you can draw a parallel between a trade treaty, where clearly there are membership rules, and the EU which has a Commission drawing up rules towards ever closer union, running rings round the European Council of Ministers, a European parliament, which, pre-pandemic, jumps backwards and forwards between Brussels and Strasbourg, a Court of Justice to enforce European state rules, and European Central bank, a European Court of Auditors ( ), a European External Action Service, and where there is clear intent to move to a common European currency, and army, foreign policy, etc., etc. Of course there will be deal with the EU, look at the trade balance with the EU, they would be mad not to want one. Not mad. Just different priorities. And Brussels’s top priority isn’t the economy - it’s Brussels. But we knew that from day 1. It’s a question about whether there is enough pressure from EU states who depend on trade with the UK to force an acceptable trade agreement.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 15, 2020 18:02:03 GMT
Yes as there will be a dispute mechanism that will be binding on Australia, as with other international treaties. There may well be commitments by the nations who are signatories to spend tax payers money on specific things. Again, very common in trade deals. You do realise trade deals usually deal with things like social security and eligibility for benefits, right? Limiting state aid contributions (something we don’t maximise anyway) seems only to prevent the government in doing a deal with the EU. It didn’t prevent us agreeing a deal limiting state aid with Japan for example. Strange. You do know a no deal brexit just means we will almost certainly still sign a deal with the EU. There will be a deal eventually. We will just have less power to negotiate once the transition period ends and once Biden ignores us. Meanwhile foreign investment will drop off a cliff edge (already dropped off by a third) because the reason to invest here is our access to the single market. See Japanese investment in the 80s. I’m glad I don’t live in Kent. You chose to vote to make it the toilet of England. It amazes me that you can draw a parallel between a trade treaty, where clearly there are membership rules, and the EU which has a Commission drawing up rules towards ever closer union, running rings round the European Council of Ministers, a European parliament, which, pre-pandemic, jumps backwards and forwards between Brussels and Strasbourg, a Court of Justice to enforce European state rules, and European Central bank, a European Court of Auditors ( ), a European External Action Service, and where there is clear intent to move to a common European currency, and army, foreign policy, etc., etc. Of course there will be deal with the EU, look at the trade balance with the EU, they would be mad not to want one. I’m not. I’m saying agreeing a trade deal with the EU with a dispute mechanism that isn’t our Supreme Court is comparable to the trade deal Australia have signed with 15 other nations which I am certain will have a dispute mechanism that isn’t all 15 of their equivalent to the Supreme Court. Remember, the EU is 27 separate (and sovereign) nations. So the impact on the whole of the EU should, on average, be divided by 27. We cannot divide the impact on us with anyone else. We will be hit so, so, so much harder. Half our trade is with the EU. Hlf of the EU’s trade is not with the UK!
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 15, 2020 18:13:46 GMT
It amazes me that you can draw a parallel between a trade treaty, where clearly there are membership rules, and the EU which has a Commission drawing up rules towards ever closer union, running rings round the European Council of Ministers, a European parliament, which, pre-pandemic, jumps backwards and forwards between Brussels and Strasbourg, a Court of Justice to enforce European state rules, and European Central bank, a European Court of Auditors ( ), a European External Action Service, and where there is clear intent to move to a common European currency, and army, foreign policy, etc., etc. Of course there will be deal with the EU, look at the trade balance with the EU, they would be mad not to want one. I’m not. I’m saying agreeing a trade deal with the EU with a dispute mechanism that isn’t our Supreme Court is comparable to the trade deal Australia have signed with 15 other nations which I am certain will have a dispute mechanism that isn’t all 15 of their equivalent to the Supreme Court. Remember, the EU is 27 separate (and sovereign) nations. So the impact on the whole of the EU should, on average, be divided by 27.We cannot divide the impact on us with anyone else. We will be hit so, so, so much harder. Half our trade is with the EU. Hlf of the EU’s trade is not with the UK! That’s a bizarre way of looking at the impact of a trade deal.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 15, 2020 18:20:34 GMT
I’m not. I’m saying agreeing a trade deal with the EU with a dispute mechanism that isn’t our Supreme Court is comparable to the trade deal Australia have signed with 15 other nations which I am certain will have a dispute mechanism that isn’t all 15 of their equivalent to the Supreme Court. Remember, the EU is 27 separate (and sovereign) nations. So the impact on the whole of the EU should, on average, be divided by 27.We cannot divide the impact on us with anyone else. We will be hit so, so, so much harder. Half our trade is with the EU. Hlf of the EU’s trade is not with the UK! That’s a bizarre way of looking at the impact of a trade deal. Not really. To massively simplify, let’s say the impact on the Uk and the EU is equal, so £100bn on each. We will be hit by £100bn loss. The entire EU, 27 different countries, will be hit by a £100bn loss, or, on average just £3.7bn per country. Compared to our £100bn hit. So each individual nation in the EU will be hit far less than we will. One of the reasons they hold all the cards in the negotiations.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 15, 2020 18:27:45 GMT
That’s a bizarre way of looking at the impact of a trade deal. Not really. To massively simplify, let’s say the impact on the Uk and the EU is equal, so £100bn on each. We will be hit by £100bn loss. The entire EU, 27 different countries, will be hit by a £100bn loss, or, on average just £3.7bn per country. Compared to our £100bn hit. So each individual nation in the EU will be hit far less than we will. One of the reasons they hold all the cards in the negotiations. Massively simplify is about spot on. Your approach sounds like how Brussels might rationalise the trade deal. I doubt it will cut much ice with the people who will be adversely affected - French farmers for example, German car manufacturers, pretty much anyone in Ireland. On the other hand I doubt anyone in Roumania will care less.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 15, 2020 18:35:47 GMT
Not really. To massively simplify, let’s say the impact on the Uk and the EU is equal, so £100bn on each. We will be hit by £100bn loss. The entire EU, 27 different countries, will be hit by a £100bn loss, or, on average just £3.7bn per country. Compared to our £100bn hit. So each individual nation in the EU will be hit far less than we will. One of the reasons they hold all the cards in the negotiations. Massively simplify is about spot on. Your approach sounds like how Brussels might rationalise the trade deal. I doubt it will cut much ice with the people who will be adversely affected - French farmers for example, German car manufacturers, pretty much anyone in Ireland. On the other hand I doubt anyone in Roumania will care less. Yes but the impact here is on british farmers, british people working in car industry, everyone in britain. So much worse here than in an individual EU nation.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 15, 2020 18:41:59 GMT
Massively simplify is about spot on. Your approach sounds like how Brussels might rationalise the trade deal. I doubt it will cut much ice with the people who will be adversely affected - French farmers for example, German car manufacturers, pretty much anyone in Ireland. On the other hand I doubt anyone in Roumania will care less. Yes but the impact here is on british farmers, british people working in car industry, everyone in britain. So much worse here than in an individual EU nation. I understand your point, but don’t underestimate the problems certain groups in some countries will face. And those individuals can kick up a hell of row - I’m thinking particularly about French farmers. Not to mention their fishermen! The EU might like to concern itself with those people and their interests.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 15, 2020 18:59:42 GMT
It amazes me that you can draw a parallel between a trade treaty, where clearly there are membership rules, and the EU which has a Commission drawing up rules towards ever closer union, running rings round the European Council of Ministers, a European parliament, which, pre-pandemic, jumps backwards and forwards between Brussels and Strasbourg, a Court of Justice to enforce European state rules, and European Central bank, a European Court of Auditors ( ), a European External Action Service, and where there is clear intent to move to a common European currency, and army, foreign policy, etc., etc. Of course there will be deal with the EU, look at the trade balance with the EU, they would be mad not to want one. I’m not. I’m saying agreeing a trade deal with the EU with a dispute mechanism that isn’t our Supreme Court is comparable to the trade deal Australia have signed with 15 other nations which I am certain will have a dispute mechanism that isn’t all 15 of their equivalent to the Supreme Court. Remember, the EU is 27 separate (and sovereign) nations. So the impact on the whole of the EU should, on average, be divided by 27. We cannot divide the impact on us with anyone else. We will be hit so, so, so much harder. Half our trade is with the EU. Hlf of the EU’s trade is not with the UK! What impact are you expecting if there is no trade deal with the EU? Trade will continue on WTO rules. So for example cars will have 10% tariff. So UK cars sold to the EU will be taxed 10% and vice versa for EU cars sold to the UK. The German car industry would lose out massively by no deal, so you can expect a trade deal to be cobbled together pdq. How are you expecting UK farmers to lose out? Once the present transition ends the UK government can simply replace the CAP with our own policy. The main threat to British farmers will be cheaper imports from the rest of the world that have been subject to EU tariffs and quotas. By the way I am well aware of Covid19 (your post 8 hours ago). I attended an online funeral of a former colleague of mine who died from the virus and a lady I know lost he father before the first lockdown.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 15, 2020 20:58:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 16, 2020 10:06:03 GMT
Yes but the impact here is on british farmers, british people working in car industry, everyone in britain. So much worse here than in an individual EU nation. I understand your point, but don’t underestimate the problems certain groups in some countries will face. And those individuals can kick up a hell of row - I’m thinking particularly about French farmers. Not to mention their fishermen! The EU might like to concern itself with those people and their interests. I think you have put your finger on the main reason a deal has not been made. France is afraid of civil unrest if they agree to UK recovering the fishing rights it had before joining the EEC. Since then they have grown their fishing industry and the UK fishing industry was devastated. French fishermen are afraid it will happen to them and are putting huge pressure on Macron. Macron has already told the French agriculture industry that there have to be changes without the UK financial contribution. French agriculture exports huge amounts to the UK, which will now be in direct contribution to world markets, which have previously been handicapped by EU food tariffs and quotas. German industry is very concerned that it will have greater competition in the UK from far East car producers, American pharmaceutical companies, etc. particularly if they get government assistance to manufacture in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2020 12:46:56 GMT
I’m not. I’m saying agreeing a trade deal with the EU with a dispute mechanism that isn’t our Supreme Court is comparable to the trade deal Australia have signed with 15 other nations which I am certain will have a dispute mechanism that isn’t all 15 of their equivalent to the Supreme Court. Remember, the EU is 27 separate (and sovereign) nations. So the impact on the whole of the EU should, on average, be divided by 27. We cannot divide the impact on us with anyone else. We will be hit so, so, so much harder. Half our trade is with the EU. Hlf of the EU’s trade is not with the UK! What impact are you expecting if there is no trade deal with the EU? Trade will continue on WTO rules. So for example cars will have 10% tariff. So UK cars sold to the EU will be taxed 10% and vice versa for EU cars sold to the UK. The German car industry would lose out massively by no deal, so you can expect a trade deal to be cobbled together pdq. How are you expecting UK farmers to lose out? Once the present transition ends the UK government can simply replace the CAP with our own policy. The main threat to British farmers will be cheaper imports from the rest of the world that have been subject to EU tariffs and quotas. By the way I am well aware of Covid19 (your post 8 hours ago). I attended an online funeral of a former colleague of mine who died from the virus and a lady I know lost he father before the first lockdown. The impact will be, for example: tariffs as you have said. The EU will stop buying goods from us that they can get tariff free from inside the EU. Kent will be a lorry park as checks on borders take time, making fresh produce difficult to quickly trade and transport and so it will be more expensive for us If the internal markets bill is followed, our government may turn its back on the good friday agreement (and the withdrawal agreement) which means forcing a hard border in ireland, destroying our reputation in the world and damaging the prospects of new trade agreements (such as with the US) We have not managed to roll over all of the other trade agreements we are party to by virtue of EU membership, meaning there will be tariffs on trade with a whole host of other countries Costs will increase for us on imports Jobs will be lost as foreign investment continues to decrease and we can no longer send cars to and from the EU tariff free which happens on multiple occasions in the production process That’s a headline list to get you started. A deal will mitigate some of those to an extent. It will still be bad compared with now. And as I have said, the impact on the EU is filtered by each individual nation. 50% of our trade, 7% or so of Germany’s for example. Much bigger impact here than Germany.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 16, 2020 12:48:30 GMT
I think, perhaps understandably, there is a very anglo-centric take on the balance between the UK and the EU from the Brexiteers. From day one, it's never really varied much from the position of "they need us more than we need them". It must be quite comforting to think so. I've never really got why the 5th/6th largest economy in the world should be able to dictate to the 2nd largest, however. It's a bit like a supplier trying to dictate to Sainsburys, they'll just explore elsewhere.
I have a fair few dealings with European businesses. By contrast, the attitude from Europe is mainly along the lines of "if a little country like the UK thinks they can thrive and prosper on their own in today's market environment, good luck to them". There's very little malice, just an appraisal of the relative degree of influence each side will have economically in future.
I think this is borne out by the UK's obvious reluctance to accede to level-playing field conditions post Brexit. It's plainly a sticking point, and one which probably makes the UK particularly uncomfortable, given the need to compete with the EU soon and provide incentives to businesses to stay and/or invest anew.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 16, 2020 13:31:41 GMT
What impact are you expecting if there is no trade deal with the EU? Trade will continue on WTO rules. So for example cars will have 10% tariff. So UK cars sold to the EU will be taxed 10% and vice versa for EU cars sold to the UK. The German car industry would lose out massively by no deal, so you can expect a trade deal to be cobbled together pdq. How are you expecting UK farmers to lose out? Once the present transition ends the UK government can simply replace the CAP with our own policy. The main threat to British farmers will be cheaper imports from the rest of the world that have been subject to EU tariffs and quotas. By the way I am well aware of Covid19 (your post 8 hours ago). I attended an online funeral of a former colleague of mine who died from the virus and a lady I know lost he father before the first lockdown. The impact will be, for example: tariffs as you have said. The EU will stop buying goods from us that they can get tariff free from inside the EU. Kent will be a lorry park as checks on borders take time, making fresh produce difficult to quickly trade and transport and so it will be more expensive for us If the internal markets bill is followed, our government may turn its back on the good friday agreement (and the withdrawal agreement) which means forcing a hard border in ireland, destroying our reputation in the world and damaging the prospects of new trade agreements (such as with the US) We have not managed to roll over all of the other trade agreements we are party to by virtue of EU membership, meaning there will be tariffs on trade with a whole host of other countries Costs will increase for us on imports Jobs will be lost as foreign investment continues to decrease and we can no longer send cars to and from the EU tariff free which happens on multiple occasions in the production process That’s a headline list to get you started. A deal will mitigate some of those to an extent. It will still be bad compared with now. And as I have said, the impact on the EU is filtered by each individual nation. 50% of our trade, 7% or so of Germany’s for example. Much bigger impact here than Germany. There's a lot of guff there, the idea that cars are sent to and from the EU in the production process is interesting, I think you will find its parts, guess what they still can be apply tariffs and companies have many choices source differently, move production. You say the EU will stop buying stuff it get tariff free elsewhere well guess what that also works for the UK. Remember the 500k jobs in the city that would move to the eu, seems a bit behind forecast must be time for citibank or goldman sachs or whichever one it is to announce the movement of their HQ for the 12th time. I could go on but its like the lsst 1200× pages never happened so I wont bother.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 16, 2020 16:39:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 16, 2020 16:49:32 GMT
|
|