EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[fowler9]

What, like trains.. or cars.. or any/many other manufactured goods that we once and still do make in this country..? The long-overdue readjustment of the value of sterling post-referendum, has provided a welcome boost to UK manufacture and export..

Do you have any significant examples of that happening?

 

[Senex]

If we have a trade deficit with the EU then surely that is because they sell us stuff that we don't or can't produce. They can charge what they want, people will still buy it. Brexiters seem to want to carry on the same but without us throwing in to the pot for the EU. Its not going to happen.

Or stuff of a quality that we can't match, and so we're prepared to pay more for the imported product even when there is a home-produced one on the market.

 

[Dave1987]

So how much would that cost (by buying out any existing PFI agreements to bring them in house)?

Actually what the shadow chancellor says makes a lot of sense long term. Just like if you buy an expensive mobile phone handset outright and get a sim only deal it is cheaper than getting a 24 month contract. Yes there is a big initial cost but over the long term it is much cheaper.

Same goes for PFI deals. There is a reason that investment firms like PFI deals because they know they will make lots of money from the taxpayer long term in the future. I rather suspect that the reason the Tories are so against this is that plenty of their party donors make lots of money from PFI deals.

Bottom line is is that long term PFI deals cost the taxpayer huge amounts in interest. This country so besotted with buy now pay later that people just seem to accept it in whatever form it comes.

 

[Dave1987]

Ow and so much for this big trade deal with the US eh! They have just slapped a 220% import tariff on Bombardier jets from the UK putting hundreds of jobs at risk. Yup that whole single market thing is looking kinda good right now

 

[D60]

This just sounds like putting ideology before realty.

I get you (and many others) don't like the EU having any kind of word in UK's affairs (which sidenote, is hilarious because we were instrumental in the make up of a lot of the EU regulations and processes that some people love to whinge about - including the Article 50 process itself!).

However, having literally no deal is so much worse than having a bad deal I have no idea where to even start. Just very quickly off the top of my head, no deal would:

• Have worse tariffs than even a "bad" deal with the EU would have
• Compromise international security efforts (because the very fact we cooperate internationally when it comes to things like intelligence and anti terrorism efforts are because we have deals in place to do so).
• Limit the ability for Brits to travel throughout Europe (as no deal would mean having to resort to potentially lengthy Visa processes - any deal to not end up in that situation, such as preferential treatment for Brits over other non-EU citizens would be a deal!)
• Restrict international travel between the UK and the EU (because the ability for airlines to fly between the UK and the EU and for the Eurostar to run etc relies on international agreements - aka a deal).

etc etc.

No deal literally means that. No agreements in how things should happen. It would be chaos and would probably bankrupt both us and the EU.



I am quoting this again so you don't miss it. That process was drafted by a Brit. This isn't a EU hates us and wants us to fail thing. Britain has had as much input into much of these things as other large EU countries had (if anything we had more input in many areas).

Meanwhile... Once again, why would they seek to start erecting artificial barriers to trade with the UK (reciprocal in nature) where none currently exist, when it would be massively in their disadvantage in trade terms to do so..!? (UK trade with the EU is in significant deficit... it is loss-making for UK-plc and profitable for the EU/Germany... Whereas I gather that UK trade with the world outside of the EU, on WTO terms, is in surplus, and profitable for UK-plc..)..

 

[WelshBluebird]

Meanwhile... Once again, why would they seek to start erecting artificial barriers to trade with the UK (reciprocal in nature) where none currently exist, when it would be massively in their disadvantage in trade terms to do so..!?

Because agreements (aka deals) would have to be made to allow that. If the agreements are not made (which would be the case in the no deal situation), then obviously barriers (be them financial or physical) would exist in accordance to whatever other rules already exist regarding EU countries trading with non-EU countries.

I am not saying they would want it, because as I said it would be bad for both us and the EU, but that is the reality of an actual no deal situation. it means no deals!

The only reason we have agreements with EU countries (for things like trade, security cooperation, visiting without need of a visa etc) is because those agreements are part of our EU membership. You take away our membership, you automatically take away those agreements. Thus new agreements would have to be made. If we are in a no deal situation, then the agreements wouldn't have been made. It really shouldn't be hard to understand.

 

[fowler9]

Meanwhile... Once again, why would they seek to start erecting artificial barriers to trade with the UK (reciprocal in nature) where none currently exist, when it would be massively in their disadvantage in trade terms to do so..!? (UK trade with the EU is in significant deficit... it is loss-making for UK-plc and profitable for the EU/Germany... Whereas I gather that UK trade with the world outside of the EU, on WTO terms, is in surplus, and profitable for UK-plc..)..

Indeed. Why can't we just leave the EU, carry on as before except just put no money in to the EU? It is so simple and you are absolutely right. You are David Davis and I claim my £5.

 

[D60]

Indeed. Why can't we just leave the EU, carry on as before except just put no money in to the EU? It is so simple and you are absolutely right. You are David Davis and I claim my £5.

In reply to Fowler and WelshBluebird (really slow on this crappy phone)... It seems we are signed up to budgetary commitments until 2020... It seems these will now be honoured (seems reasonable)... 'Barriers to trade' are not just in the form of tariffs, but are often in the form of common and agreed standards.. which we are already fully signed up to and compliant with... So no barriers there... So ok they erect and impose artificial tariff barriers where none currently exist... Which would harm them more than us, since they sell more to us than we do to them... Why would they do this..!? Oh yeh, for purely political, punitive reasons... Because for them, politics trumps trade... and they would prefer to erect barriers in the way of their own profitable trade with the UK... Sounds like the blinkered ideology is with them... Ours so-called 'partners in trade'.. !

 

[WelshBluebird]

In reply to Fowler and WelshBluebird (really slow on this crappy phone)... It seems we are signed up to budgetary commitments until 2020... It seems these will now be honoured (seems reasonable)... 'Barriers to trade' are not just in the form of tariffs, but are often in the form of common and agreed standards.. which we are already fully signed up to and compliant with... So no barriers there... So ok they erect and impose artificial tariff barriers where none currently exist... Which would harm them more than us, since they sell more to us than we do to them... Why would they do this..!? Oh yeh, for purely political, punitive reasons... Because for them, politics trumps trade... and they would barriers in the way of their own profitable trade with the UK... Sounds like the blinkered ideology is with them... Ours so-called 'partners in trade'.. !

You keep repeating the same things without actually paying attention to what people are saying.

No barriers are there in terms of tariffs etc because we are currently part of the EU. Once we leave, the barriers that exist for EU countries trading with non-EU countries without any other agreements will kick in. To avoid that, we have to make agreements. By the very definitions of the words, if we do make agreements then we are no longer in a "no deal" situation. A "no deal" situation would mean us not making these agreements. Does that makes sense to you?

This has literally nothing with the UK wanting to punish the UK, and everything to do with the fact that trade and other international cooperation (I see you have ignored my points on security and travel too) require agreements and deals (which again, if we walk away in a "no deal" situation, we would not have these agreements in place!).

Do I think the EU actually want that? No because it would bad for them. Should the UK want that? No because it would be bad for us too.

I am not being naive either. Do I think the EU will probably try to make an example of us leaving? Probably yeah. But all this talk about "no deal" has literally nothing to do with that, because as I said, no deal will involve the worst of any bad deal you could think of, made even worse.

 

[AlterEgo]

So ok they erect and impose artificial tariff barriers where none currently exist... Which would harm them more than us, since they sell more to us than we do to them...

Wait.

You're suggesting that the EU, a bloc of some 700 million people when we leave, need us more than we, a country of 60 million, need them?

PS: you're talking about goods only there. We have a significant trade surplus when it comes to services, and services are a far bigger part of our economy than goods. Services account for 79% of our GDP.

 

[D60]

You keep repeating the same things without actually paying attention to what people are saying.

No barriers are there in terms of tariffs etc because we are currently part of the EU. Once we leave, the barriers that exist for EU countries trading with non-EU countries without any other agreements will kick in. To avoid that, we have to make agreements. By the very definitions of the words, if we do make agreements then we are no longer in a "no deal" situation. A "no deal" situation would mean us not making these agreements. Does that makes sense to you?

This has literally nothing with the UK wanting to punish the UK, and everything to do with the fact that trade and other international cooperation (I see you have ignored my points on security and travel too) require agreements and deals (which again, if we walk away in a "no deal" situation, we would not have these agreements in place!).

Do I think the EU actually want that? No because it would bad for them. Should the UK want that? No because it would be bad for us too.

I am not being naive either. Do I think the EU will probably try to make an example of us leaving? Probably yeah. But all this talk about "no deal" has literally nothing to do with that, because as I said, no deal will involve the worst of any bad deal you could think of, made even worse.

All/any ongoing arrangements that are to the mutual benefit of both parties bi-laterally are entirely do-able, if both parties seek to conclude them... Whyever not..?

 

[WelshBluebird]

if both parties seek to conclude them...

But that is the point. To keep the existing arrangements would require a deal. So by its very definition, a no deal situation would mean those arrangements would not be kept.

 

[D60]

But that is the point. To keep the existing arrangements would require a deal. So by its very definition, a no deal situation would mean those arrangements would not be kept.

Well.. I'm pretty sure that the 'existing arrangements' is what was rejected in the referendum !

 

[WelshBluebird]

Well.. I'm pretty sure that the 'existing arrangements' is what was rejected in the referendum !

You know exactly what I mean.
Look I know you are obviously ideologically opposed to the EU.
But just look at the facts for a second.

We leave the EU, any existing arrangements go out of the window.

Thus, we will need some agreements made with the EU for the various issues that we will need to cooperate on (aka a set of "deals").

If we don't get agreements on these areas, then that is the "no deal" situation.

These areas include things like the ability for us to cooperate on security, on no having artificial barriers to trade, on us not having to have visas to go on holiday to Spain etc etc.

And so that "no deal" situation involves significant issues with the above areas (and more), because we wouldn't have agreements in place for them.

 

[D60]

You know exactly what I mean.
Look I know you are obviously ideologically opposed to the EU.
But just look at the facts for a second.

We leave the EU, any existing arrangements go out of the window.

Thus, we will need some agreements made with the EU for the various issues that we will need to cooperate on (aka a set of "deals").

If we don't get agreements on these areas, then that is the "no deal" situation.

These areas include things like the ability for us to cooperate on security, on no having artificial barriers to trade, on us not having to have visas to go on holiday to Spain etc etc.

And so that "no deal" situation involves significant issues with the above areas (and more), because we wouldn't have agreements in place for them.

I agree entirely... The Leave campaign(s) specifically made it clear that there would be no reason and no benefit for either parties to terminate agreements over areas of mutual co-operation (the sorts of areas you have outlined above)... So, the UK 'negotiating team' is seeking to construct a 'deal' on that basis... It seems that the EU sides is showing less 'flexibility' to do such a 'deal'... This appears to be making it more likely that no 'deal' will be achievable... This has to be an option, the 'walk away' option, otherwise they will impose whatever stitch-up they want, if we appear desperate enough to do a 'deal at any cost'... It really is up to them at this point..

 

[EM2]

All/any ongoing arrangements that are to the mutual benefit of both parties bi-laterally are entirely do-able, if both parties seek to conclude them... Whyever not..?

Well, one party doesn't wish to conclude the ongoing arrangements. They wish to exit the single market and customs union, to start with.

 

[fowler9]

I agree entirely... The Leave campaign(s) specifically made it clear that there would be no reason and no benefit for either parties to terminate agreements over areas of mutual co-operation (the sorts of areas you have outlined above)... So, the UK 'negotiating team' is seeking to construct a 'deal' on that basis... It seems that the EU sides is showing less 'flexibility' to do such a 'deal'... This appears to be making it more likely that no 'deal' will be achievable... This has to be an option, the 'walk away' option, otherwise they will impose whatever stitch-up they want, if we appear desperate enough to do a 'deal at any cost'... It really is up to them at this point..

Ah mate seriously? What don't you understand? You seem to want the customs agreements and in general completely free trade without us paying anything. Basically you think we are that important that we should just be in the EU but with no responsibilities at all. You want all the benefits and none of the draw backs, it is not going to happen.

 

[HSTEd]

Yeah like where?

China, India, North America and increasingly Africa.
Even alone the UK is still one of the richest markets in the world

 

[D60]

Ah mate seriously? What don't you understand? You seem to want the customs agreements and in general completely free trade without us paying anything. Basically you think we are that important that we should just be in the EU but with no responsibilities at all. You want all the benefits and none of the draw backs, it is not going to happen.

Ah mate, whaat..!? Who else in the world pays a bill, to (supposedly) trade fairly and freely..? Who would be mug enough to sign up to that kind of a stitch-up..!? Well, the UK, obvs.. under Edward Heath 1972/3 (EEC accession).. and then M.Thatcher 1986 (Single European Act).. and then Major 1992 (Maastricht).. and at the same time Major (ERM).. and then Cameron/Osborne's Remain campaign 2016... If that's the agenda you support, then fair play to you in your minority viewpoint... Meanwhile, in the 2017 election, 90+% of votes cast were for parties pledged to Leave the Single Market and Customs Union... (NB, we had free trade with continental Europe before we were ever signed up to the EEC, as founder members of EFTA from 1960..)..

 

[Starmill]

Ah mate, whaat..!? Who else in the world pays a bill, to (supposedly) trade fairly and freely..? Who would be mug enough to sign up to that kind of a stitch-up..!?

How else will you remove non-tariff barriers? If you want to trade with other EU countries you must comply with the regulations on what can be traded, how it's prepared or manufactured, transported, measured and packaged etc. etc. If we are not part of the EU we have no say in these regulations. We have been instrumental as a country in building up this basis of regulations. If we try to break the regulations, other EU countries will be barred from importing our goods. We would also be ignoring rules that we helped to make and that we lobbied the other EU countries to follow. There is some small measure of cost to all of this, and that is part of what the cost of being in the single market represents.

Unless you think that trade is not actually that important after all, how can we keep the non-tariff barriers to trade away?

 

[Starmill]

China, India, North America and increasingly Africa.

Which all share one common factor: being a very very long way away. Why do you think we have more trade with most EU countries than with these? Because of the EU or because they are nearby?

Even alone the UK is still one of the richest markets in the world

What does that mean? That it somehow matters less for us to export goods and services? Have you seen our balance of payments deficit?

 

[NSEFAN]

China, India, North America and increasingly Africa.
Even alone the UK is still one of the richest markets in the world

In that case we should expect the quality of our imports to go down. The EU sets some of the highest standards in the world, but if we're desperate for food then we will almost certainly see a decline in quality control by taking our business elsewhere. Not to mention the far greater distance that products have to travel, increasing the environmental cost of our way of life.

We may be a rich market at the moment, but unless the government is organised and careful we could really jeopardise our position and make ourselves poorer.

Meanwhile, in the 2017 election, 90+% of votes cast were for parties pledged to Leave the Single Market and Customs Union... (NB, we had free trade with continental Europe before we were ever signed up to the EEC, as founder members of EFTA from 1960..)..

This isn't 1960 anymore. The established way of doing things then may not necessarily happen today. It's quite likely that we'll come to some sort of trade arrangement, but voting to leave the EU is absolutely not the same as turning the clock back. Our country and our western European neighbours are all very different from how they were back then.

 

[D60]

How else will you remove non-tariff barriers? If you want to trade with other EU countries you must comply with the regulations on what can be traded, how it's prepared or manufactured, transported, measured and packaged etc. etc. If we are not part of the EU we have no say in these regulations. We have been instrumental as a country in building up this basis of regulations. If we try to break the regulations, other EU countries will be barred from importing our goods. We would also be ignoring rules that we helped to make and that we lobbied the other EU countries to follow. There is some small measure of cost to all of this, and that is part of what the cost of being in the single market represents.

Unless you think that trade is not actually that important after all, how can we keep the non-tariff barriers to trade away?

We are already fully compliant, in terms of regulations... The 'membership bill' is not about paying to sign up to 'permission to trade'... for we had a mutually beneficial fair and free trade agreement with continental Europe before we were ever signed up to the 'European Project'..

 

[D60]

In that case we should expect the quality of our imports to go down. The EU sets some of the highest standards in the world, but if we're desperate for food then we will almost certainly see a decline in quality control by taking our business elsewhere. Not to mention the far greater distance that products have to travel, increasing the environmental cost of our way of life.

We may be a rich market at the moment, but unless the government is organised and careful we could really jeopardise our position and make ourselves poorer.


This isn't 1960 anymore. The established way of doing things then may not necessarily happen today. It's quite likely that we'll come to some sort of trade arrangement, but voting to leave the EU is absolutely not the same as turning the clock back. Our country and our western European neighbours are all very different from how they were back then.

The point being, it is not, and never was, necessary to sign up to a proto-governmental geo-political supranational superstate to trade fairly and freely with ones near neighbours... (where else in the world..? Nowhere else..)..

 

[D60]

Which all share one common factor: being a very very long way away. Why do you think we have more trade with most EU countries than with these? Because of the EU or because they are nearby?



What does that mean? That it somehow matters less for us to export goods and services? Have you seen our balance of payments deficit?

Balance of payment deficit..!? Yep massively in deficit with the EU (£80billion per annum in deficit, massively loss-making)... In surplus outside of the EU, profitable for the UK..

 

[EM2]

(where else in the world..? Nowhere else..)..

Almost every country in the world is a member of at least one trading bloc in some form or another - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_blochttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_bloc

 

[D60]

Almost every country in the world is a member of at least one trading bloc in some form or another - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_blochttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_bloc

Trading bloc..? What, like a 'free trade agreement'..? The EU is far removed from being a free trade area, as I'm sure you'll acknowledge..

 

[NSEFAN]

The point being, it is not, and never was, necessary to sign up to a proto-governmental geo-political supranational superstate to trade fairly and freely with ones near neighbours... (where else in the world..? Nowhere else..)..

Again, the world is different now and politics is not so mechanical. If the EU values its European projects more than free trade with us then we'll have to accept that to some degree, if we wish to work with the EU. As others have said earlier, the other member states have their own problems to worry about, so why should they give preferential treatment to another state that doesn't want to play ball if there's nothing much to be gained?

We will probably find the same frosty reception from any non-EU country or trade bloc, too. Free trade agreements have to provide both sides with benefits, otherwise there's no point. Ironically we would have more power to change the political direction of the EU by remaining a member, than as an external country looking to trade.

 

[HSTEd]

Which all share one common factor: being a very very long way away. Why do you think we have more trade with most EU countries than with these? Because of the EU or because they are nearby?

Because trade patterns take years to develop, absent government efforts to the contrary, and because the drastic reductions in transport costs brought about by ultralarge container carriers are a recent development.

Sea shipping has made large scale trade over intercontinental distances cheap

What does that mean? That it somehow matters less for us to export goods and services? Have you seen our balance of payments deficit?

I am not sure why the BoP deficit is not a problem inside the EU but is one outside of it?

 

[HSTEd]

In that case we should expect the quality of our imports to go down. The EU sets some of the highest standards in the world, but if we're desperate for food then we will almost certainly see a decline in quality control by taking our business elsewhere. Not to mention the far greater distance that products have to travel, increasing the environmental cost of our way of life.

We may be a rich market at the moment, but unless the government is organised and careful we could really jeopardise our position and make ourselves poorer.

Unless the Government allows quality to fall, it won't.
An African state could make a ridiculous amount of money being a manufacturing hub for the British market, so much that the cost of tooling up to meet British standards would be a minor impediment.
Being 'Britain's workshop, larder and other supplier' might be a niche role, but it would fit a small/midsize developing nation quite well