|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 10, 2022 9:03:57 GMT
So you seem to be arguing that the UK could have set up freeports whilst in the EU and can continue to do so now we have left , but with more freedom( hopefully as we get a government who realises the implications of Brexit we can further distance ourselves from the EU.... " ever more disentanglement").....so it's a question for the government we elect....not a Brexit issue ( except we do have more freedom). www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/trade-freeports-free-zonesThe UK will, however, have more freedom over the flexibilities and tax concessions it can offer in free zones. This is because EU freeports are governed by the Union Customs Code as well as by EU rules on state aid, which stop member states using selective tax exemptions and financial incentives to distort competition. From your own link: Other economic commentators such as the UK Trade Policy Observatory (UKTPO) have suggested, however, that these studies were based on questionable assumptions. The figure for new jobs in the Sunak report, for example, was produced by taking the number of people employed in the US’s Free Trade Zones (FTZs) and reducing it in line with the size of the UK’s total workforce. This assumes, however, that every job in an FTZ is a new job that would not exist in the absence of the FTZ – an assumption that one US Congress report suggests is implausible. In addition, the success of the US’s FTZs been based in a large part on a peculiarity of the US tariff schedule by which the tariff on some finished goods is lower than the tariff on their parts – a phenomenon known as “tariff inversion”. This sometimes makes it advantageous to import parts into an FTZ, complete the final stages of processing there, then have the finished good enter the US at the lower tariff. Tariff inversion is very rare in the UK, however, so this benefit would be unlikely to materialise. Finally, the UK’s own experience with freeports and enterprise zones suggests that there is a severe risk of merely diverting business from other parts of the UK, rather than creating genuinely new economic activity – and doing this at a considerable cost in incentives paid and taxes foregone. In April 2019, the European Parliament called for freeports to be scrapped across the EU as a result of a report on tax evasion and money laundering. The report argues that freeports provide operators “with a safe and widely disregarded storage space, where trade can be conducted untaxed and ownership can be concealed.” The lack of scrutiny on imports means that high-value items like art, for example, can be bought and easily stored in freeports without the kind of checks and controls they would normally face. The likelihood of this will become clearer when the freeports are operational. It all sounds a bit smoke and mirrors to me, and based on somewhat dubiously concluded benefits and potentially illegal activities. You can see why they appeal to this government! Also, what happens to the goods that are exempt from 'normal' regulations, taxes and tariffs when they leave the freeport zone, further into the UK? They're subject to the usual regs, taxes and tariffs at their final destination presumably? Red , I think that there is plenty that Brexiteers ( and others) are not happy about in respect of this government's arrangements since leaving the EU. Hopefully as time goes on we can increasingly reassert our independence, as future MPs realise the realities of the situation....but no one can predict the future. But we have left and future relations with the EU and future decisions for the country are in the hands of the government that we elect. Much of the gripes are not with Brexit per se but with the elected government.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 10, 2022 9:29:19 GMT
My own view on freeports is that they are of marginal benefit. When we were in the EU the benefits were so marginal due to EU regulations that they were not worth the effort and cost of administration.
There is clearly an incentive to companies to participate in a freeport but the advantage to the country as a whole is tempered by the adverse impact on those localities not inside the freeport. A company may move from Middlesbrough to Redcar to be inside the Teesside freeport for increased benefits/opportunities, but where does that leave Middlesbrough? Then there are issues such as smuggling.
On balance I'm sure there is an optimum position where freeports will be advantageous to the UK economy overall, but people should not expect some sort of bonanza.
As with new trade agreements, deregulation generally, reduced contributions to the EU, etc. the benefits are incremental but taken together they will lead to significant economic benefits. This is aside from the issues of sovereignty and democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 10, 2022 10:17:59 GMT
From your own link: Other economic commentators such as the UK Trade Policy Observatory (UKTPO) have suggested, however, that these studies were based on questionable assumptions. The figure for new jobs in the Sunak report, for example, was produced by taking the number of people employed in the US’s Free Trade Zones (FTZs) and reducing it in line with the size of the UK’s total workforce. This assumes, however, that every job in an FTZ is a new job that would not exist in the absence of the FTZ – an assumption that one US Congress report suggests is implausible. In addition, the success of the US’s FTZs been based in a large part on a peculiarity of the US tariff schedule by which the tariff on some finished goods is lower than the tariff on their parts – a phenomenon known as “tariff inversion”. This sometimes makes it advantageous to import parts into an FTZ, complete the final stages of processing there, then have the finished good enter the US at the lower tariff. Tariff inversion is very rare in the UK, however, so this benefit would be unlikely to materialise. Finally, the UK’s own experience with freeports and enterprise zones suggests that there is a severe risk of merely diverting business from other parts of the UK, rather than creating genuinely new economic activity – and doing this at a considerable cost in incentives paid and taxes foregone. In April 2019, the European Parliament called for freeports to be scrapped across the EU as a result of a report on tax evasion and money laundering. The report argues that freeports provide operators “with a safe and widely disregarded storage space, where trade can be conducted untaxed and ownership can be concealed.” The lack of scrutiny on imports means that high-value items like art, for example, can be bought and easily stored in freeports without the kind of checks and controls they would normally face. The likelihood of this will become clearer when the freeports are operational. It all sounds a bit smoke and mirrors to me, and based on somewhat dubiously concluded benefits and potentially illegal activities. You can see why they appeal to this government! Also, what happens to the goods that are exempt from 'normal' regulations, taxes and tariffs when they leave the freeport zone, further into the UK? They're subject to the usual regs, taxes and tariffs at their final destination presumably? Red , I think that there is plenty that Brexiteers ( and others) are not happy about in respect of this government's arrangements since leaving the EU. Hopefully as time goes on we can increasingly reassert our independence, as future MPs realise the realities of the situation....but no one can predict the future. But we have left and future relations with the EU and future decisions for the country are in the hands of the government that we elect. Much of the gripes are not with Brexit per se but with the elected government. That's true. Would you be happy if successive governments, realising that Brexit is/has not been a good thing for the country as a whole, brought the country closer and closer to alignment with the EU?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 10, 2022 10:24:43 GMT
For ease I will answer your questions in bold in the body of your post but post links to support below Some extracts explaining the implications of the TCA However, the specificity of the provisions of the TCA significantly limit the UK's powers. For instance, the assessment and approval criteria, such as proportionality and necessity are very similar to the criteria applied by the European Commission. The TCA also lists a number of prohibited subsidies (e.g. unlimited state guarantees or export subsidies) whilst other types of subsidies (such as rescue and restructuring aid or environmental aid) are subject to conditions which sound very familiar to any EU state aid practitioner. A Joint Declaration on subsidy control policies contains further guidance.ConclusionFor a long time, the UK resisted strict state aid/subsidy control rules post-Brexit but it eventually ended up with a framework that at least in substance is likely to closely resemble the EU regime.So there we have it www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/ckk3zxli31ank0988v084ehed/subsidy-control-under-the-eu-uk-trade-and-cooperation-agreementSo you seem to be arguing that the UK could have set up freeports whilst in the EU and can continue to do so now we have left , but with more freedom( hopefully as we get a government who realises the implications of Brexit we can further distance ourselves from the EU.... " ever more disentanglement").....so it's a question for the government we elect....not a Brexit issue ( except we do have more freedom). www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/trade-freeports-free-zonesThe UK will, however, have more freedom over the flexibilities and tax concessions it can offer in free zones. This is because EU freeports are governed by the Union Customs Code as well as by EU rules on state aid, which stop member states using selective tax exemptions and financial incentives to distort competition. I'm not arguing anything, I'm saying the structure and benefits UK can offer within a Freeport are no different now than when UK were in EU due to Level Playing Field Provision in TCA THERE IS NO MORE FREEDOM The second paragraph (Quoted from Institute) I would contend is a stretch. The "Union" Rules it refer to are the EU Customs Rules regarding Imports into EU which were Codified in May 2016 to give clarity to UK and Others the documentation required to Export to EU and also clarification on "Rules of Origin " to qualify for Tarrif Free Import. Possibly they might benefit a Company in a Freezone in some peculiar circumstance, I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 10, 2022 10:27:36 GMT
My own view on freeports is that they are of marginal benefit. When we were in the EU the benefits were so marginal due to EU regulations that they were not worth the effort and cost of administration. There is clearly an incentive to companies to participate in a freeport but the advantage to the country as a whole is tempered by the adverse impact on those localities not inside the freeport. A company may move from Middlesbrough to Redcar to be inside the Teesside freeport for increased benefits/opportunities, but where does that leave Middlesbrough? Then there are issues such as smuggling. On balance I'm sure there is an optimum position where freeports will be advantageous to the UK economy overall, but people should not expect some sort of bonanza. As with new trade agreements, deregulation generally, reduced contributions to the EU, etc. the benefits are incremental but taken together they will lead to significant economic benefits. This is aside from the issues of sovereignty and democracy. I agree that they're probably not worth the bother - more of a "look at what we're doing to make things work", hence my comment about smoke and mirrors. I'm concerned by your reliance on de-regulation. I agree that it is the most likely outcome, but where we differ, I suspect, is what that de-regulation will achieve. Self- and de-regulation never work. They always result in the kind of outcomes that happened in 2007, a few people will get very wealthy on the back of it, while millions suffer and governments have to intervene, costing taxpayers billions. A painful and much more costly result which could have been avoided by better regulation at the time - regulation which was avoided because it was seen as too costly and unnecessary. We should learn from that painful lesson, not seek to repeat it. We're both keen environmentalists. Further de-regulation, as signalled by the government, will not protect the environment. It's not a stretch to extrapolate this into other areas.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 10, 2022 10:53:27 GMT
So you seem to be arguing that the UK could have set up freeports whilst in the EU and can continue to do so now we have left , but with more freedom( hopefully as we get a government who realises the implications of Brexit we can further distance ourselves from the EU.... " ever more disentanglement").....so it's a question for the government we elect....not a Brexit issue ( except we do have more freedom). www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/trade-freeports-free-zonesThe UK will, however, have more freedom over the flexibilities and tax concessions it can offer in free zones. This is because EU freeports are governed by the Union Customs Code as well as by EU rules on state aid, which stop member states using selective tax exemptions and financial incentives to distort competition. From your own link: Other economic commentators such as the UK Trade Policy Observatory (UKTPO) have suggested, however, that these studies were based on questionable assumptions. The figure for new jobs in the Sunak report, for example, was produced by taking the number of people employed in the US’s Free Trade Zones (FTZs) and reducing it in line with the size of the UK’s total workforce. This assumes, however, that every job in an FTZ is a new job that would not exist in the absence of the FTZ – an assumption that one US Congress report suggests is implausible. In addition, the success of the US’s FTZs been based in a large part on a peculiarity of the US tariff schedule by which the tariff on some finished goods is lower than the tariff on their parts – a phenomenon known as “tariff inversion”. This sometimes makes it advantageous to import parts into an FTZ, complete the final stages of processing there, then have the finished good enter the US at the lower tariff. Tariff inversion is very rare in the UK, however, so this benefit would be unlikely to materialise. Finally, the UK’s own experience with freeports and enterprise zones suggests that there is a severe risk of merely diverting business from other parts of the UK, rather than creating genuinely new economic activity – and doing this at a considerable cost in incentives paid and taxes foregone. In April 2019, the European Parliament called for freeports to be scrapped across the EU as a result of a report on tax evasion and money laundering. The report argues that freeports provide operators “with a safe and widely disregarded storage space, where trade can be conducted untaxed and ownership can be concealed.” The lack of scrutiny on imports means that high-value items like art, for example, can be bought and easily stored in freeports without the kind of checks and controls they would normally face. The likelihood of this will become clearer when the freeports are operational. It all sounds a bit smoke and mirrors to me, and based on somewhat dubiously concluded benefits and potentially illegal activities. You can see why they appeal to this government! Also, what happens to the goods that are exempt from 'normal' regulations, taxes and tariffs when they leave the freeport zone, further into the UK? They're subject to the usual regs, taxes and tariffs at their final destination presumably? The two biggest criticisms of Freeports as you outline are 1) The Jobs created are mostly just moved from one place to another to exploit a particular Loophole that is limited to a certain few Companies, and 2) The potential increase in Fraud and Money laundering This is just another attempt by Liz and Rishi to attempt to show the Public a "Brexit Benefit" which could have happened within the EU and to try and show they actually have some positive ideas on the Economy As you say "Smoke and Mirrors "
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 10, 2022 11:15:45 GMT
So you seem to be arguing that the UK could have set up freeports whilst in the EU and can continue to do so now we have left , but with more freedom( hopefully as we get a government who realises the implications of Brexit we can further distance ourselves from the EU.... " ever more disentanglement").....so it's a question for the government we elect....not a Brexit issue ( except we do have more freedom). www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/trade-freeports-free-zonesThe UK will, however, have more freedom over the flexibilities and tax concessions it can offer in free zones. This is because EU freeports are governed by the Union Customs Code as well as by EU rules on state aid, which stop member states using selective tax exemptions and financial incentives to distort competition. I'm not arguing anything, I'm saying the structure and benefits UK can offer within a Freeport are no different now than when UK were in EU due to Level Playing Field Provision in TCA THERE IS NO MORE FREEDOM The second paragraph (Quoted from Institute) I would contend is a stretch. The "Union" Rules it refer to are the EU Customs Rules regarding Imports into EU which were Codified in May 2016 to give clarity to UK and Others the documentation required to Export to EU and also clarification on "Rules of Origin " to qualify for Tarrif Free Import. Possibly they might benefit a Company in a Freezone in some peculiar circumstance, I doubt it. The sources actually say that there is more freedom and flexibility,not complete, the EU conditions are stricter.....but let's hope as time goes on we move further away from the EU ..." ever further disentanglement ". Bur as I said originally, decisions are now made by the UK government. If , as you argue, it is no different, then , as I said earlier, the decisions, before and after Brexit, rest with the government.....unless in reality the power lies in Brussels.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 10, 2022 11:20:44 GMT
Red , I think that there is plenty that Brexiteers ( and others) are not happy about in respect of this government's arrangements since leaving the EU. Hopefully as time goes on we can increasingly reassert our independence, as future MPs realise the realities of the situation....but no one can predict the future. But we have left and future relations with the EU and future decisions for the country are in the hands of the government that we elect. Much of the gripes are not with Brexit per se but with the elected government. That's true. Would you be happy if successive governments, realising that Brexit is/has not been a good thing for the country as a whole, brought the country closer and closer to alignment with the EU? Or made good decisions for ourselves, as other countries do who are not in political and economic union with the EU......but we need a good government to do that.
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Aug 10, 2022 11:47:28 GMT
Red , I think that there is plenty that Brexiteers ( and others) are not happy about in respect of this government's arrangements since leaving the EU. Hopefully as time goes on we can increasingly reassert our independence, as future MPs realise the realities of the situation....but no one can predict the future. But we have left and future relations with the EU and future decisions for the country are in the hands of the government that we elect. Much of the gripes are not with Brexit per se but with the elected government. That's true. Would you be happy if successive governments, realising that Brexit is/has not been a good thing for the country as a whole, brought the country closer and closer to alignment with the EU? I find it very telling that so many Brexiteers never seem to extol the virtues of being outside the EU,Bonkers Boris promised the easiest trade deal in history ,Norway ++ what he delivered is a shambles ++.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 10, 2022 12:30:46 GMT
My own view on freeports is that they are of marginal benefit. When we were in the EU the benefits were so marginal due to EU regulations that they were not worth the effort and cost of administration. There is clearly an incentive to companies to participate in a freeport but the advantage to the country as a whole is tempered by the adverse impact on those localities not inside the freeport. A company may move from Middlesbrough to Redcar to be inside the Teesside freeport for increased benefits/opportunities, but where does that leave Middlesbrough? Then there are issues such as smuggling. On balance I'm sure there is an optimum position where freeports will be advantageous to the UK economy overall, but people should not expect some sort of bonanza. As with new trade agreements, deregulation generally, reduced contributions to the EU, etc. the benefits are incremental but taken together they will lead to significant economic benefits. This is aside from the issues of sovereignty and democracy. I agree that they're probably not worth the bother - more of a "look at what we're doing to make things work", hence my comment about smoke and mirrors. I'm concerned by your reliance on de-regulation. I agree that it is the most likely outcome, but where we differ, I suspect, is what that de-regulation will achieve. Self- and de-regulation never work. They always result in the kind of outcomes that happened in 2007, a few people will get very wealthy on the back of it, while millions suffer and governments have to intervene, costing taxpayers billions. A painful and much more costly result which could have been avoided by better regulation at the time - regulation which was avoided because it was seen as too costly and unnecessary. We should learn from that painful lesson, not seek to repeat it. We're both keen environmentalists. Further de-regulation, as signalled by the government, will not protect the environment. It's not a stretch to extrapolate this into other areas. Why do you always consider the negative aspect of deregulation? If there are negative changes then they are done by a British government elected by British people and we get what we deserve. (Edit: and sovereignty means future governments can change our legislation; something we can't do with EU Regulations.) I look at the positives. On trade we can improve trade deals with Japan ( already done) and Canada (in progress). We can have new trade deals with countries the EU does not have deals with. We can join other trade groups. We have our own place at the table of the WTO, instead of officials from Brussels representing us. In a few years time we will be much better placed to trade with the world than as members of the EU. On environment we are banning sale of new fossil fuels cars from 2030, while the EU talk about and are arguing over banning them in 2035. We have far more legislation now in law on protecting the environment since leaving the EU such as incentivising farmers to look after the planet instead of maximising intensive farming and destroying it (the CAP). We are banning wet log burning, and gas heating in new housing.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Aug 10, 2022 12:51:43 GMT
That's true. Would you be happy if successive governments, realising that Brexit is/has not been a good thing for the country as a whole, brought the country closer and closer to alignment with the EU? I find it very telling that so many Brexiteers never seem to extol the virtues of being outside the EU,Bonkers Boris promised the easiest trade deal in history ,Norway ++ what he delivered is a shambles ++. I think you find most brexiteers regularly state how fucking delighted they are to not be in the EU anymore, not as regularly as people like you cry over us not being in the EU of course...... Promised the easiest trade deal history myth is back I see, actually he said it SHOULD be the easiest deal not WOULD and he was correct it could have been but for lots of reasons covered over the last 1400 pages+ it wasnt.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 10, 2022 14:54:07 GMT
I'm not arguing anything, I'm saying the structure and benefits UK can offer within a Freeport are no different now than when UK were in EU due to Level Playing Field Provision in TCA THERE IS NO MORE FREEDOM The second paragraph (Quoted from Institute) I would contend is a stretch. The "Union" Rules it refer to are the EU Customs Rules regarding Imports into EU which were Codified in May 2016 to give clarity to UK and Others the documentation required to Export to EU and also clarification on "Rules of Origin " to qualify for Tarrif Free Import. Possibly they might benefit a Company in a Freezone in some peculiar circumstance, I doubt it. The sources actually say that there is more freedom and flexibility,not complete, the EU conditions are stricter.....but let's hope as time goes on we move further away from the EU ..." ever further disentanglement ". Bur as I said originally, decisions are now made by the UK government. If , as you argue, it is no different, then , as I said earlier, the decisions, before and after Brexit, rest with the government.....unless in reality the power lies in Brussels. In reality it's a collective power I think in many people's eyes Brexit would be like the Gold Rush and after exit UK could go and sell to whomever we liked without any Rules As well as signing an FTA with EU, UK Government also rolled over Trade Agreements the EU had with 70 odd countries They would all contain Tarrif Quotas and Level Playing Field Provisions Everything outside EU and these 70 odd other Countries is covered by WTO who have similar, but to be fair more relaxed Rules its called Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures SCM Those are the realities of International Trade or as someone once said .... Them's The Breaks
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 10, 2022 15:29:27 GMT
I agree that they're probably not worth the bother - more of a "look at what we're doing to make things work", hence my comment about smoke and mirrors. I'm concerned by your reliance on de-regulation. I agree that it is the most likely outcome, but where we differ, I suspect, is what that de-regulation will achieve. Self- and de-regulation never work. They always result in the kind of outcomes that happened in 2007, a few people will get very wealthy on the back of it, while millions suffer and governments have to intervene, costing taxpayers billions. A painful and much more costly result which could have been avoided by better regulation at the time - regulation which was avoided because it was seen as too costly and unnecessary. We should learn from that painful lesson, not seek to repeat it. We're both keen environmentalists. Further de-regulation, as signalled by the government, will not protect the environment. It's not a stretch to extrapolate this into other areas. Why do you always consider the negative aspect of deregulation? If there are negative changes then they are done by a British government elected by British people and we get what we deserve. (Edit: and sovereignty means future governments can change our legislation; something we can't do with EU Regulations.) I look at the positives. On trade we can improve trade deals with Japan ( already done) and Canada (in progress). We can have new trade deals with countries the EU does not have deals with. We can join other trade groups. We have our own place at the table of the WTO, instead of officials from Brussels representing us. In a few years time we will be much better placed to trade with the world than as members of the EU. On environment we are banning sale of new fossil fuels cars from 2030, while the EU talk about and are arguing over banning them in 2035. We have far more legislation now in law on protecting the environment since leaving the EU such as incentivising farmers to look after the planet instead of maximising intensive farming and destroying it (the CAP). We are banning wet log burning, and gas heating in new housing. With respect, like Col Potter used to say in MASH this is Horse Hockey The Government’s own impact assessment of the Japan CEPA is that it will add 0.07% to UK GDP over 15 years www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-japan-cepa-final-impact-assessment/executive-summary-for-the-final-impact-assessment-of-the-uk-japan-comprehensive-economic-partnership-cepa#:~:text=In%20the%20long%20run%2C%20the,when%20compared%20to%202019%20levels. What gives you any indication that UK will conclude a better Trade Agreement with Canada than EU? Has Liz been up to her old tricks with Trudeau like previously with Kwasi and Mark Field? The rest of the post is Jam Tomorrow based on possible actions and like you I don't go in for predictions
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 10, 2022 15:34:55 GMT
The sources actually say that there is more freedom and flexibility,not complete, the EU conditions are stricter.....but let's hope as time goes on we move further away from the EU ..." ever further disentanglement ". Bur as I said originally, decisions are now made by the UK government. If , as you argue, it is no different, then , as I said earlier, the decisions, before and after Brexit, rest with the government.....unless in reality the power lies in Brussels. In reality it's a collective power I think in many people's eyes Brexit would be like the Gold Rush and after exit UK could go and sell to whomever we liked without any Rules As well as signing an FTA with EU, UK Government also rolled over Trade Agreements the EU had with 70 odd countries They would all contain Tarrif Quotas and Level Playing Field Provisions Everything outside EU and these 70 odd other Countries is covered by WTO who have similar, but to be fair more relaxed Rules its called Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures SCM Those are the realities of International Trade or as someone once said .... Them's The Breaks How could anyone think Brexit would be a trade Gold Rush when we were constantly being told "little Britain" did not have the ability to negotiate the same deals as the mighty EU, and it could take up to 10 years to negotiate deals? The reality is as you stated in your next two paragraphs with 3 exception: The timetable for removing provisions in the EU Japan ta were reduced in the UK Japan ta with some extra agreements made on IT. The UK and Canada agreed to roll over the EU agreement (which is still not ratified by many EU members nations) and set to work on a mutually better ta. One African country refused to roll over the existing EU ta, trying to squeeze better terms from the UK. But Truss, to her credit stood her ground and when the country was faced with WTO terms and paying tariff on bananas they agreed to the EU terms after a month. The UK has made new agreements with Australia and New Zealand and started a host of negotiations with other countries and trade groups, which I will report on in my quarterly post Brexit progress report.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 10, 2022 15:38:42 GMT
The sources actually say that there is more freedom and flexibility,not complete, the EU conditions are stricter.....but let's hope as time goes on we move further away from the EU ..." ever further disentanglement ". Bur as I said originally, decisions are now made by the UK government. If , as you argue, it is no different, then , as I said earlier, the decisions, before and after Brexit, rest with the government.....unless in reality the power lies in Brussels. In reality it's a collective power I think in many people's eyes Brexit would be like the Gold Rush and after exit UK could go and sell to whomever we liked without any Rules As well as signing an FTA with EU, UK Government also rolled over Trade Agreements the EU had with 70 odd countries They would all contain Tarrif Quotas and Level Playing Field Provisions Everything outside EU and these 70 odd other Countries is covered by WTO who have similar, but to be fair more relaxed Rules its called Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures SCM Those are the realities of International Trade or as someone once said .... Them's The Breaks Yes, I agree with that....but simply as time moves on the UK makes adjusts, renegotiate those " deals" from our own perspective, and does not have to refer to the EU. It is still in fact early days, in our escape from Ever closer union introduced stealth.....and as the EU is a project in progress( hence EVER closer union), no one can predict what our situation would be in the future....as we become further entwined...for example , in my opinion, I believe that there would become a time when we would be "required" to join the Euro( and our politicians would probably have consented), and then it would have been virtually impossible to escape ( without other unrest)and there's no guarantee that the ' sunny uplands' of EU membership will continue, the utopia that remainers seem to ....I believe that most Brexiteers voted leave simply because they want the UK to be independent of the EU, and still do. I'm not going to rehash the arguments or enter new ones about Brexit because it has happened, but there are still many people/ bodies who want and need Brexit to be a " failure " for several reasons.....and obviously many old arguments will be rehashed in response to that opinion.....support for different views/ arguments can easily be found via Google/Twitter.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 10, 2022 16:09:42 GMT
Why do you always consider the negative aspect of deregulation? If there are negative changes then they are done by a British government elected by British people and we get what we deserve. (Edit: and sovereignty means future governments can change our legislation; something we can't do with EU Regulations.) I look at the positives. On trade we can improve trade deals with Japan ( already done) and Canada (in progress). We can have new trade deals with countries the EU does not have deals with. We can join other trade groups. We have our own place at the table of the WTO, instead of officials from Brussels representing us. In a few years time we will be much better placed to trade with the world than as members of the EU. On environment we are banning sale of new fossil fuels cars from 2030, while the EU talk about and are arguing over banning them in 2035. We have far more legislation now in law on protecting the environment since leaving the EU such as incentivising farmers to look after the planet instead of maximising intensive farming and destroying it (the CAP). We are banning wet log burning, and gas heating in new housing. With respect, like Col Potter used to say in MASH this is Horse Hockey The Government’s own impact assessment of the Japan CEPA is that it will add 0.07% to UK GDP over 15 years www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-japan-cepa-final-impact-assessment/executive-summary-for-the-final-impact-assessment-of-the-uk-japan-comprehensive-economic-partnership-cepa#:~:text=In%20the%20long%20run%2C%20the,when%20compared%20to%202019%20levels. What gives you any indication that UK will conclude a better Trade Agreement with Canada than EU? Has Liz been up to her old tricks with Trudeau like previously with Kwasi and Mark Field? The rest of the post is Jam Tomorrow based on possible actions and like you I don't go in for predictions If you can quote MASH, I can quote Aesop: "I am sure the grapes were sour anyway."No one knows what a trade agreement might yield, it all depends on what businessmen can exploit. Who knows what is going to happen next month in the world let alone 15 years? There are large differences in forcasts between different experts, based on differing trade theories.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 10, 2022 16:10:42 GMT
I think that's a very fair assessment John
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 10, 2022 16:16:55 GMT
If you can quote MASH, I can quote Aesop: "I am sure the grapes were sour anyway."No one knows what a trade agreement might yield, it all depends on what businessmen can exploit. Who knows what is going to happen next month in the world let alone 15 years? There are large differences in forcasts between different experts, based on differing trade theories. I would suggest the Grapes are more likely to be of the John Steinbeck variety judging by the way the economy is going
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 10, 2022 16:21:01 GMT
I think that's a very fair assessment John And I think you have made some excellent points about the realities of Trade deals. What I genuinely believe is that most of the posters on the board want the best for the UK, want the UK to be a decent country, and also wish the best for the rest of the world, particularly those who have been perennial victims. Hence the passion in the debates. How we get there, or at least go in the right direction is the challenge. It is a shame that there is not more consensus on some issues, surely caring and basic humanity should be common traits? What I think is an " irony " about life.....there could be something around the corner that supercedes all the current debates, opinions and power bases . No one predicted Covid. Nuclear war is unthinkable.....but it is possible. The climate emergency could escalate exponentially. I think other " hidden " aspects of the environment ( eg , just in the UK...bees, insects) may emerge. I think we are ruining the oceans. And there may not be a political answer. And I'm an optimist!!
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 10, 2022 17:50:59 GMT
I find it very telling that so many Brexiteers never seem to extol the virtues of being outside the EU,Bonkers Boris promised the easiest trade deal in history ,Norway ++ what he delivered is a shambles ++. I think you find most brexiteers regularly state how fucking delighted they are to not be in the EU anymore, not as regularly as people like you cry over us not being in the EU of course...... Promised the easiest trade deal history myth is back I see, actually he said it SHOULD be the easiest deal not WOULD and he was correct it could have been but for lots of reasons covered over the last 1400 pages+ it wasnt. I suspect you're a dying breed, though... whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 10, 2022 18:03:27 GMT
I think you find most brexiteers regularly state how fucking delighted they are to not be in the EU anymore, not as regularly as people like you cry over us not being in the EU of course...... Promised the easiest trade deal history myth is back I see, actually he said it SHOULD be the easiest deal not WOULD and he was correct it could have been but for lots of reasons covered over the last 1400 pages+ it wasnt. I suspect you're a dying breed, though... whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/I don't think polls actually tell us much. But in this case , which of the 216 polls refers to Brexiteers changing their minds , as opposed to Leavers/ others. Just a thought: these polls have notoriously small sample sizes AND those who take part are much more likely to be enthusiastic remainers wanting to make their point...I don't think Brexiteers are too bothered about going over things endlessly. Mind you those in charge of the polls make a good living and feed media stories.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 10, 2022 20:08:32 GMT
I don't think polls actually tell us much. But in this case , which of the 216 polls refers to Brexiteers changing their minds , as opposed to Leavers/ others. Just a thought: these polls have notoriously small sample sizes AND those who take part are much more likely to be enthusiastic remainers wanting to make their point...I don't think Brexiteers are too bothered about going over things endlessly. Mind you those in charge of the polls make a good living and feed media stories. They do also provide solace to those grieving over the results of real polls, when people secretly vote for for what they actually want.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 12, 2022 7:22:41 GMT
I don't think polls actually tell us much. But in this case , which of the 216 polls refers to Brexiteers changing their minds , as opposed to Leavers/ others. Just a thought: these polls have notoriously small sample sizes AND those who take part are much more likely to be enthusiastic remainers wanting to make their point...I don't think Brexiteers are too bothered about going over things endlessly. Mind you those in charge of the polls make a good living and feed media stories. That's how polls work, John, they don't ask everyone!! However, they will be a representative cross-section of the country, that's how polls work! They certainly aren't 100% accurate all the time, it's true, but they do give a good indication, generally, of what the wider public is thinking. If the overwhelming majority of the results, hundreds in fact, show that there is a feeling of having done the wrong thing, and that's a growing indication, that's difficult to dispute. Doesn't change anything of course. Might indicate the dying off of Leavers and people changing their minds, who knows. Might also indicate where we're heading politically in the future?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 12, 2022 7:33:18 GMT
I don't think polls actually tell us much. But in this case , which of the 216 polls refers to Brexiteers changing their minds , as opposed to Leavers/ others. Just a thought: these polls have notoriously small sample sizes AND those who take part are much more likely to be enthusiastic remainers wanting to make their point...I don't think Brexiteers are too bothered about going over things endlessly. Mind you those in charge of the polls make a good living and feed media stories. That's how polls work, John, they don't ask everyone!! However, they will be a representative cross-section of the country, that's how polls work! They certainly aren't 100% accurate all the time, it's true, but they do give a good indication, generally, of what the wider public is thinking. If the overwhelming majority of the results, hundreds in fact, show that there is a feeling of having done the wrong thing, and that's a growing indication, that's difficult to dispute. Doesn't change anything of course. Might indicate the dying off of Leavers and people changing their minds, who knows. Might also indicate where we're heading politically in the future? [br Everybody dies. You can't predict the future. Polls show very little, and in fact can be misleading and are wrong as often as right. Point out one poll which shows Leavers have changed their minds...I think I saw one which said that 15% had, same poll said 6% Remainers had. Anyway crack on with continuing to tell yourself that you were right, I don't think you are changing any minds( mind you I forgot you are a Leaver!), and it makes you feel better.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 12, 2022 7:42:11 GMT
That's how polls work, John, they don't ask everyone!! However, they will be a representative cross-section of the country, that's how polls work! They certainly aren't 100% accurate all the time, it's true, but they do give a good indication, generally, of what the wider public is thinking. If the overwhelming majority of the results, hundreds in fact, show that there is a feeling of having done the wrong thing, and that's a growing indication, that's difficult to dispute. Doesn't change anything of course. Might indicate the dying off of Leavers and people changing their minds, who knows. Might also indicate where we're heading politically in the future? [br Everybody dies. You can't predict the future. Polls show very little, and in fact can be misleading and are wrong as often as right. Point out one poll which shows Leavers have changed their minds...I think I saw one which said that 15% had, same poll said 6% Remainers had. Anyway crack on with continuing to tell yourself that you were right, I don't think you are changing any minds( mind you I forgot you are a Leaver!), and it makes you feel better. Oh, grow up, John! Anyone can see the direction of travel from those 200 odd separate polls. I know you don't like to admit it, but it seems like more and more people are thinking that leaving the EU was the wrong thing to do. We shouldn't really be surprised. There never really were any tangible benefits, just numerous disbenefits and inconveniences which become more apparent almost daily. Perhaps more people are seeing the balance between them and drawing their own conclusions?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 12, 2022 8:18:48 GMT
[br Everybody dies. You can't predict the future. Polls show very little, and in fact can be misleading and are wrong as often as right. Point out one poll which shows Leavers have changed their minds...I think I saw one which said that 15% had, same poll said 6% Remainers had. Anyway crack on with continuing to tell yourself that you were right, I don't think you are changing any minds( mind you I forgot you are a Leaver!), and it makes you feel better. Oh, grow up, John! Anyone can see the direction of travel from those 200 odd separate polls. I know you don't like to admit it, but it seems like more and more people are thinking that leaving the EU was the wrong thing to do. We shouldn't really be surprised. There never really were any tangible benefits, just numerous disbenefits and inconveniences which become more apparent almost daily. Perhaps more people are seeing the balance between them and drawing their own conclusions? There was a poll in 2016, quite a big sample size. A long time ago, and it did contradict predictions...what's the point in not coming to termswiththe result?...crack on.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Aug 12, 2022 8:25:54 GMT
Oh, grow up, John! Anyone can see the direction of travel from those 200 odd separate polls. I know you don't like to admit it, but it seems like more and more people are thinking that leaving the EU was the wrong thing to do. We shouldn't really be surprised. There never really were any tangible benefits, just numerous disbenefits and inconveniences which become more apparent almost daily. Perhaps more people are seeing the balance between them and drawing their own conclusions? There was a poll in 2016, quite a big sample size. A long tome ago, and it did contradict predictions....crack on. Whether there are polls showing more or less people in favour or against Brexit is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything now. Get over it (to everyone in general)
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 12, 2022 8:33:30 GMT
There was a poll in 2016, quite a big sample size. A long tome ago, and it did contradict predictions....crack on. Whether there are polls showing more or less people in favour or against Brexit is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything now. Get over it (to everyone in general) I agree entirely Foster. I once took a job in about 2002, I soon regretted it, but it worked out very well in the end. In or out of the EU there is enough on the agenda in the coming six months to occupy us/ politicians. Why do you think people continue to prolong the debate/ or look back to 2016
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Aug 14, 2022 11:18:42 GMT
"For some strange reason Global Britain – the new world-beating behemoth, suddenly freed from the chains of EU control and ready to stride around the world cutting new trade deals left, right and centre – seems to have stayed in bed. The evidence is clear. The UK is now a less globally important trading nation, is rapidly being left behind by its rivals and trade is becoming a smaller part of its economy. If you don’t trust me you just have to look at the latest analysis from the Office for Budget Responsibility, the government’s own economic watchdog." www.theneweuropean.co.uk/trade-figures-for-brexit-and-britain-disaster/
|
|
|
Post by Hereward the Wake ᛊᛏᛟᚲᛖ on Aug 14, 2022 11:21:05 GMT
Whether there are polls showing more or less people in favour or against Brexit is irrelevant. It doesn't change anything now. Get over it (to everyone in general) I agree entirely Foster. I once took a job in about 2002, I soon regretted it, but it worked out very well in the end. In or out of the EU there is enough on the agenda in the coming six months to occupy us/ politicians. Why do you think people continue to prolong the debate/ or look back to 2016 Take polls with a pinch of salt , depending on their source, who's paying for it, what their agenda is etc can influence the results . I voted to leave and would do again based on my own analysis.
|
|