Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
No, Pete, I won't.
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
No, Pete, I won't.
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
Far from it.
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
Bruce is ace Don the Goggle king for answers very educating !
bring the ghost on
Player Valuation: £35m
You're often on here complaining that Leave voters are tarnished and branded as racists or old selfish people by Remain voters.
Can't you see the hypocrisy then, when you post things like this, where you present your view of Remain voters as being sad, angry, bitter people who are all doom and gloom.
I certainly don't want to have any excuse to call Brexit a calamity, but just look at the manner of Ivan Rogers's recent departure. Even his predecessor is warning that we're heading for a car crash Brexit unless we get out act together.
Whether we were right or wrong to leave, how you can defend the shambles that is currently going on is beyond me.
Very funny we have a cunnning plan heard them all like @peteblue stated some on here want us to fail good job another war would not have to be fought this attitude god help us!
Bruce is ace Don a Liberal, but ace!
Donald Twain
Vide cor meum
he is.
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
1. Yes leave voters have been tarnished in this thread as racists, bigots, and old selfish people with no thought for the future. I don't complain about it; I point out (as do others) the stupidity and absurdity of such claims.
2. There is no hypocrisy at all. This thread has sometimes been a continuous stream of crying, whingeing and doom and gloom from remain voters. Sorry for putting it so strongly, but that is the truth.
3. Again, the Ambassador who resigned recently. Go read one of my previous posts to see how a public servant of this country SHOULD have behaved! What he did was disgraceful, and he should be utterly ashamed of himself. And as for his predecessor, same old same old. Things didn't go the way he wanted, so doom and gloom.
4. Tell me exactly what IS the shambles? The shambles is that the previous PM, Cameron, did not ensure action was taken to cover both scenarios in the referendum, in the expectation that his chosen side would carry the vote. When it didn't and he resigned, HE, CAMERON, left the country and the new PM with a situation that she had to kick off from scratch. It is the remit of the Civil Service in the run-up to any General Election to prepare thoroughly for all eventualities, in order to ensure a smooth transition of Government should that be needed. Cameron should have instructed the senior Civil Service to make plans for the eventuality of a leave vote. The arrogant sod did no such thing. And his buddy Osbourne was a public disgrace in the run-up to the vote, scare-mongering the UK public with threats of a dire budget if the vote was to lose. Both chicken-hearted politicians fled the coop once their bluff had been called. I'm not defending any shambles, just telling you where the shambles originated in the first place, and how it could/should have been avoided!
So we've had Trump's #1 pick for trade dude saying that America can exploit the chaos of Brexit. Now the top trade dude from Canada is saying the same. Oh dear. They join the Indians, who gave short shrift to Theresa May because of her rhetoric over migration. They must all be remoaners or something.
"Writing in the Observer, Jason Langrish – one of Canada’s authorities in the field – says the UK’s former ambassador to the EU, Sir Ivan Rogers, who resigned last week and quit the civil service, was absolutely right to say that a British deal could also take a decade to strike.
Langrish, who was closely involved in the prolonged Canadian talks, argues that Rogers’ analysis of the time-scale “seems realistic”, and says discussions he has had with UK government officials about Brexit suggest that there is little chance of minimising serious potential damage from the UK’s exit from the European Union.
Although he has no formal role in advising the UK, Langrish has been sounded out behind the scenes by those involved with handling Brexit in Whitehall. The impression he has been left with is that unless the British government shows more flexibility it will probably have to revert to World Trade Organisation rules and common tariffs, which could lop 4% off UK GDP.
Referring to his talks with UK officials, he writes: “While they have always been pleasant (and notably friendly towards Canada), my view is that they remain in campaign mode.
“Were they willing to realistically discuss options for Brexit, as opposed to telling you what they intend to do in a general sense while dismissing the obvious concerns, they may have a chance to minimise the damage from the potentially catastrophic decision to leave. This seems increasingly unlikely. Let’s hope that the courts, parliament and, ultimately, the electorate do it for them.”
The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement has been cited by UK politicians and senior figures in other member states as a potential model for the UK to follow. In March, before the Brexit referendum, Boris Johnson, now the foreign secretary, said: “I think we can strike a deal as the Canadians have done, based on trade and getting rid of tariffs. It’s a very, very bright future I see.”
he had warned ministers that the view in Brussels was that a trade deal with the EU could be a decade at least in the making, and that even then there was no guarantee of success.
Rogers quit his post last week and in a memo to staff talked of “muddled thinking” about strategy at the top of government.
A spokesman for the Foreign Office said that Rogers had also resigned from the civil service and would be paid three months’ salary in lieu of his notice period. He will not receive a payoff and did not ask for one.
“We are grateful for Sir Ivan’s work in Brussels and across a number of other senior positions in the civil service,” the spokesman said."
"Writing in the Observer, Jason Langrish – one of Canada’s authorities in the field – says the UK’s former ambassador to the EU, Sir Ivan Rogers, who resigned last week and quit the civil service, was absolutely right to say that a British deal could also take a decade to strike.
Langrish, who was closely involved in the prolonged Canadian talks, argues that Rogers’ analysis of the time-scale “seems realistic”, and says discussions he has had with UK government officials about Brexit suggest that there is little chance of minimising serious potential damage from the UK’s exit from the European Union.
Although he has no formal role in advising the UK, Langrish has been sounded out behind the scenes by those involved with handling Brexit in Whitehall. The impression he has been left with is that unless the British government shows more flexibility it will probably have to revert to World Trade Organisation rules and common tariffs, which could lop 4% off UK GDP.
Referring to his talks with UK officials, he writes: “While they have always been pleasant (and notably friendly towards Canada), my view is that they remain in campaign mode.
“Were they willing to realistically discuss options for Brexit, as opposed to telling you what they intend to do in a general sense while dismissing the obvious concerns, they may have a chance to minimise the damage from the potentially catastrophic decision to leave. This seems increasingly unlikely. Let’s hope that the courts, parliament and, ultimately, the electorate do it for them.”
The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement has been cited by UK politicians and senior figures in other member states as a potential model for the UK to follow. In March, before the Brexit referendum, Boris Johnson, now the foreign secretary, said: “I think we can strike a deal as the Canadians have done, based on trade and getting rid of tariffs. It’s a very, very bright future I see.”
he had warned ministers that the view in Brussels was that a trade deal with the EU could be a decade at least in the making, and that even then there was no guarantee of success.
Rogers quit his post last week and in a memo to staff talked of “muddled thinking” about strategy at the top of government.
A spokesman for the Foreign Office said that Rogers had also resigned from the civil service and would be paid three months’ salary in lieu of his notice period. He will not receive a payoff and did not ask for one.
“We are grateful for Sir Ivan’s work in Brussels and across a number of other senior positions in the civil service,” the spokesman said."
Meanwhile, the WTO option...
"
THE two sides of the Brexit debate do not agree on much, but they agree on this: if Britain fails to reach a trade deal with the EU it will have to revert to the “WTO option”. This involves trading only under rules set by the World Trade Organisation. The Leave camp is happy with this idea; Remainers less so. But the awkward truth is that the WTO option is not much of a fallback. Becoming an independent WTO member will be tortuous.
It is puzzling that Brexiteers, whose campaign was summed up as “Vote Leave, take back control”, seem happy with the WTO option. The WTO is truly global, with only a handful of countries outside it (zealous as they are about sovereignty, Brexiteers do not want to join the ranks of Turkmenistan and Nauru). But forsaking one unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy in Brussels for another housed in a leafy district of Geneva seems perverse. WTO members are at the mercy of its “dispute-settlement” regime, which allows other countries to enforce penalties.
Inconsistency has its upside. Membership of the WTO appears to be good for trade. Most economists believe Britain’s overall trade will suffer if Britain leaves the single market. But Brexiteers argue that, out of the EU’s clutches, Britain will be the WTO’s star pupil, striking trade deals across the world. China’s explosive export growth after joining in 2001 testifies to its potency.
However, there is a snag. Britain is already a member of the WTO, but operates through the EU. To become a fully independent member, Britain needs to have its own “schedules”, WTO-speak for the lists of tariffs and quotas that it would apply to other countries’ products. Alan Winters, of the UK Trade Policy Observatory at the University of Sussex, says that, in theory, it would not be too hard for Britain to acquire its own schedules. Any change would require the acquiescence of other members. But, using a “rectification” procedure, the government would simply cut “EU” at the top of the page and paste in “UK” instead. Bigger changes—say, raising tariffs on certain goods—might require a more ambitious “modification” and more thorough negotiations.
The most simple course, then, would seem to be for Britain to keep its schedules as they are under the EU, including the “common external tariff”, applied uniformly by EU members to imports from third countries. The government has recently hinted as much. This avoids diplomatic wrangling. But simply to readopt EU-approved commitments hardly looks like “taking back control”. It would also lead to other problems.
WTO trade agreements assume that the EU as it currently stands is a coherent economic bloc. Trade in goods between the 28 member states is pretty free. Multinationals, which need to move components back and forth frequently between different member states, have set up supply chains accordingly. Brexit complicates this arrangement. If Britain kept the common external tariff in place, then it might also apply to a company moving components between the EU and Britain. Such a firm could incur tariff charges each time a border is crossed. A WTO member might kick up a fuss if, say, one of its car companies with production facilities in both Britain and the EU suddenly found it more expensive to assemble a model.
A related problem concerns the WTO’s “tariff-rate quotas” (TRQs). These allow a certain amount of a good to enter at a cheaper tariff rate. The EU has almost 100 of them. Peter Ungphakorn, formerly of the WTO secretariat, uses the example of the “Hilton” beef quota (named after a hotel where the agreement was reached) to illustrate how gnarly Brexit could be.
The EU’s current official quota on beef imports is about 40,000 tonnes, charged 20% import duty, he reckons. Above the quota, the duty is much higher. Britain and the EU will need to divide those 40,000 tonnes. The EU might push Britain to take a big share, appeasing European beef producers. British farmers would howl as low-tariff beef flooded in. The quotas might need to be increased because Britain-EU trade would now come under them. Expect to hear more about TRQs in 2017. According to Luis González García of Matrix Chambers, a legal-services firm, they are likely to become “the most contentious issue” in Britain’s re-establishment of its status as an independent WTO member.
Least-favoured nation
The WTO will even shape the Brexit negotiations themselves. In recent weeks, the government has appeared keen to ensure that, even after Brexit, Britain’s big exporters will be able to sell freely to the single market. It has mooted paying into the EU budget to guarantee access for the City of London’s financiers. It has assured Nissan, a carmaker, that it will not lose from Brexit. It has studiously refused to spell out the terms of this guarantee, rumoured to entail as-yet-unspent regional-development funds.
WTO rules, however, make such industry-specific deals hard. If Britain were to agree bilaterally with the EU not to apply tariffs on cars, the WTO’s “most-favoured nation” principle would force it to offer tariff-free access to other countries’ too, says Mr Ungphakorn. And free-trade deals are not supposed to cover just one or two goods, but “substantially all the trade” between the countries involved. Meanwhile, channelling government money to boost exports is frowned on in Geneva.
Some of these problems are surmountable. The WTO is not as legalistic as you might think, says Mr Winters; countries that stay in others’ good books find things easier. But so far, British politicians are also struggling on that front. Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, has irritated his counterparts with clownish comments. “We are pro-secco but by no means anti-pasto,” he recently told The Sun, a newspaper, alluding to food imports from the EU. When the reality of Brexit dawns, Mr Johnson and his fellow Brexiteers will find no trade deal to be especially appetising."
"
THE two sides of the Brexit debate do not agree on much, but they agree on this: if Britain fails to reach a trade deal with the EU it will have to revert to the “WTO option”. This involves trading only under rules set by the World Trade Organisation. The Leave camp is happy with this idea; Remainers less so. But the awkward truth is that the WTO option is not much of a fallback. Becoming an independent WTO member will be tortuous.
It is puzzling that Brexiteers, whose campaign was summed up as “Vote Leave, take back control”, seem happy with the WTO option. The WTO is truly global, with only a handful of countries outside it (zealous as they are about sovereignty, Brexiteers do not want to join the ranks of Turkmenistan and Nauru). But forsaking one unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy in Brussels for another housed in a leafy district of Geneva seems perverse. WTO members are at the mercy of its “dispute-settlement” regime, which allows other countries to enforce penalties.
Inconsistency has its upside. Membership of the WTO appears to be good for trade. Most economists believe Britain’s overall trade will suffer if Britain leaves the single market. But Brexiteers argue that, out of the EU’s clutches, Britain will be the WTO’s star pupil, striking trade deals across the world. China’s explosive export growth after joining in 2001 testifies to its potency.
However, there is a snag. Britain is already a member of the WTO, but operates through the EU. To become a fully independent member, Britain needs to have its own “schedules”, WTO-speak for the lists of tariffs and quotas that it would apply to other countries’ products. Alan Winters, of the UK Trade Policy Observatory at the University of Sussex, says that, in theory, it would not be too hard for Britain to acquire its own schedules. Any change would require the acquiescence of other members. But, using a “rectification” procedure, the government would simply cut “EU” at the top of the page and paste in “UK” instead. Bigger changes—say, raising tariffs on certain goods—might require a more ambitious “modification” and more thorough negotiations.
The most simple course, then, would seem to be for Britain to keep its schedules as they are under the EU, including the “common external tariff”, applied uniformly by EU members to imports from third countries. The government has recently hinted as much. This avoids diplomatic wrangling. But simply to readopt EU-approved commitments hardly looks like “taking back control”. It would also lead to other problems.
WTO trade agreements assume that the EU as it currently stands is a coherent economic bloc. Trade in goods between the 28 member states is pretty free. Multinationals, which need to move components back and forth frequently between different member states, have set up supply chains accordingly. Brexit complicates this arrangement. If Britain kept the common external tariff in place, then it might also apply to a company moving components between the EU and Britain. Such a firm could incur tariff charges each time a border is crossed. A WTO member might kick up a fuss if, say, one of its car companies with production facilities in both Britain and the EU suddenly found it more expensive to assemble a model.
A related problem concerns the WTO’s “tariff-rate quotas” (TRQs). These allow a certain amount of a good to enter at a cheaper tariff rate. The EU has almost 100 of them. Peter Ungphakorn, formerly of the WTO secretariat, uses the example of the “Hilton” beef quota (named after a hotel where the agreement was reached) to illustrate how gnarly Brexit could be.
The EU’s current official quota on beef imports is about 40,000 tonnes, charged 20% import duty, he reckons. Above the quota, the duty is much higher. Britain and the EU will need to divide those 40,000 tonnes. The EU might push Britain to take a big share, appeasing European beef producers. British farmers would howl as low-tariff beef flooded in. The quotas might need to be increased because Britain-EU trade would now come under them. Expect to hear more about TRQs in 2017. According to Luis González García of Matrix Chambers, a legal-services firm, they are likely to become “the most contentious issue” in Britain’s re-establishment of its status as an independent WTO member.
Least-favoured nation
The WTO will even shape the Brexit negotiations themselves. In recent weeks, the government has appeared keen to ensure that, even after Brexit, Britain’s big exporters will be able to sell freely to the single market. It has mooted paying into the EU budget to guarantee access for the City of London’s financiers. It has assured Nissan, a carmaker, that it will not lose from Brexit. It has studiously refused to spell out the terms of this guarantee, rumoured to entail as-yet-unspent regional-development funds.
WTO rules, however, make such industry-specific deals hard. If Britain were to agree bilaterally with the EU not to apply tariffs on cars, the WTO’s “most-favoured nation” principle would force it to offer tariff-free access to other countries’ too, says Mr Ungphakorn. And free-trade deals are not supposed to cover just one or two goods, but “substantially all the trade” between the countries involved. Meanwhile, channelling government money to boost exports is frowned on in Geneva.
Some of these problems are surmountable. The WTO is not as legalistic as you might think, says Mr Winters; countries that stay in others’ good books find things easier. But so far, British politicians are also struggling on that front. Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, has irritated his counterparts with clownish comments. “We are pro-secco but by no means anti-pasto,” he recently told The Sun, a newspaper, alluding to food imports from the EU. When the reality of Brexit dawns, Mr Johnson and his fellow Brexiteers will find no trade deal to be especially appetising."
Clint Planet
Utter Cad.
Other than that, everything's fine.
joey_macmo
Player Valuation: £35m
Nah they didn't really, if there are more quotes anywhere then by all means put them up.
Here's the quotes that are in every paper I've seen
bring the ghost on
Player Valuation: £35m
Right, gotcha, so there is no calamity, but there is a shambles, right?
bring the ghost on
Player Valuation: £35m
I agree that a large part of the reason things are so shambolic and/or calamitous is that Cameron was not expecting the vote to go this way and we are woefully underprepared for dealing with it.
- Status