Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%
  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%

  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
UK has '˜no capacity' for quick new trade deals with smaller countries - FT.

Yet another going on about extending our time in the EU so as to avoid a cliff edge. Exactly what is this cliff edge ? We can trade with the EU on WTO rules, but reimburse exporters to the EU with the import tariffs collected from EU imports. Companies are well versed in operating WTO rules because we currently use them to trade with the rest of the world today, and it is a growing market for us, unlike the EU. The resource he speaks of requiring, is for new free trade agreements, and because we already operate EU standards we can both set up new agreements as we wish while piggybacking off existing and new EU agreements. We should prepare for WTO rules and let the EU push for a deal.....
 
Yet another going on about extending our time in the EU so as to avoid a cliff edge. Exactly what is this cliff edge ? We can trade with the EU on WTO rules, but reimburse exporters to the EU with the import tariffs collected from EU imports. Companies are well versed in operating WTO rules because we currently use them to trade with the rest of the world today, and it is a growing market for us, unlike the EU. The resource he speaks of requiring, is for new free trade agreements, and because we already operate EU standards we can both set up new agreements as we wish while piggybacking off existing and new EU agreements. We should prepare for WTO rules and let the EU push for a deal.....

We've done this to death ffs, it's the customs systems, capacity, manufacturer supply chains, logistics and how to process an additional 200m transactions compared to the current 55m. Not to mention financial passporting, open skies etc etc etc ad bleeding infinitum. We need time to sort all of these issues and processes out, and a further 18 months isn't going to be enough.
 
We've done this to death ffs, it's the customs systems, capacity, manufacturer supply chains, logistics and how to process an additional 200m transactions compared to the current 55m. Not to mention financial passporting, open skies etc etc etc ad bleeding infinitum. We need time to sort all of these issues and processes out, and a further 18 months isn't going to be enough.

Then we shouldn't be wasting time then.....
 
Come on, Bruce, you know exactly what I am driving at.

I have never stated that anyone is a raving right-wing Tory lunatic, or a wet-nelly of a moderate Lib Dem, yet allegations have been lobbed at me and others in this thread over a long period of time. Ruairi77's being the latest (read it, Bruce), and I don't see any admonition for the accusation of me, joey or pete being influenced by a Communist country/leader. That is simply wrong and has no foundation in fact (with regard to myself), yet he/she can get away with it. What am I missing here, Bruce?

Russia hasn't been communist for about a quarter of a century. Aside from the general point, I realise, but still...
 
I did like this......

Blowers_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwYJjS7npPQgtAdk-0cld6jM.jpg
 
Yet another going on about extending our time in the EU so as to avoid a cliff edge. Exactly what is this cliff edge ? We can trade with the EU on WTO rules, but reimburse exporters to the EU with the import tariffs collected from EU imports. Companies are well versed in operating WTO rules because we currently use them to trade with the rest of the world today, and it is a growing market for us, unlike the EU. The resource he speaks of requiring, is for new free trade agreements, and because we already operate EU standards we can both set up new agreements as we wish while piggybacking off existing and new EU agreements. We should prepare for WTO rules and let the EU push for a deal.....

'Reimbursing' would be an interesting argument at the WTO.
 
There are more and more people saying that we should forget a trade deal and just go straight to WTO rules, the ex head of the BoE Mervyn King has now also come to the same view.....
King has been saying that for a year, he's a Brexiteer.

May's speech tomorrow should bury the idea that a hard Brexit is on the cards as far as the UK is concerned. Why anyone would advocate the cliff edge option when both sides of the channel would be woefully under prepared for it, is beyond me, it's like the ultimate in self destruction, pushed by gung ho Brexiteers who have bugger all personal stake in the mayhem it'd cause.
 
King has been saying that for a year, he's a Brexiteer.

May's speech tomorrow should bury the idea that a hard Brexit is on the cards as far as the UK is concerned. Why anyone would advocate the cliff edge option when both sides of the channel would be woefully under prepared for it, is beyond me, it's like the ultimate in self destruction, pushed by gung ho Brexiteers who have bugger all personal stake in the mayhem it'd cause.

Mays speech will be really interesting, and will show up exactly how the EU are thinking and behaving. If she puts across a fair approach to our leaving and it gets thrown in our face, the UK will solidify a hard approach to our leaving.....
 
Forget planning for no deal. The government isn't really planning for Brexit at all
The British government is simply not in a position to handle life after the EU.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...al-government-isnt-really-planning-brexit-all
No deal is better than a bad deal? That phrase has essentially vanished from Theresa May’s lips since the loss of her parliamentary majority in June, but it lives on in the minds of her boosters in the commentariat and the most committed parts of the Brexit press. In fact, they have a new meme: criticising the civil service and ministers who backed a Remain vote for “not preparing” for a no deal Brexit.

Leaving without a deal would mean, among other things, dropping out of the Open Skies agreement which allows British aeroplanes to fly to the United States and European Union. It would lead very quickly to food shortages and also mean that radioactive isotopes, used among other things for cancer treatment, wouldn’t be able to cross into the UK anymore. “Planning for no deal” actually means “making a deal”. (Where the Brexit elite may have a point is that the consequences of no deal are sufficiently disruptive on both sides that the British government shouldn’t worry too much about the two-year time frame set out in Article 50, as both sides have too big an incentive to always agree to extra time. I don’t think this is likely for political reasons but there is a good economic case for it.)

For the most part, you can’t really plan for no deal. There are however some things the government could prepare for. They could, for instance, start hiring additional staff for customs checks and investing in a bigger IT system to be able to handle the increased volume of work that would need to take place at the British border. It would need to begin issuing compulsory purchases to build new customs posts at ports, particularly along the 300-mile stretch of the Irish border – where Northern Ireland, outside the European Union, would immediately have a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, which would remain inside the bloc. But as Newsnight’s Christopher Cook details, the government is doing none of these things.

Now, in a way, you might say that this is a good decision on the government’s part. Frankly, these measures would only be about as useful as doing your seatbelt up before driving off the Grand Canyon. Buying up land and properties along the Irish border has the potential to cause political headaches that neither the British nor Irish governments need. However, as Cook notes, much of the government’s negotiating strategy seems to be based around convincing the EU27 that the United Kingdom might actually walk away without a deal, so not making even these inadequate plans makes a mockery of their own strategy.

But the frothing about preparing for “no deal” ignores a far bigger problem: the government isn’t really preparing for any deal, and certainly not the one envisaged in May’s Lancaster House speech, where she set out the terms of Britain’s Brexit negotiations, or in her letter to the EU27 triggering Article 50. Just to reiterate: the government’s proposal is that the United Kingdom will leave both the single market and the customs union. Its regulations will no longer be set or enforced by the European Court of Justice or related bodies.

That means that, when Britain leaves the EU, it will need, at a minimum: to beef up the number of staff, the quality of its computer systems and the amount of physical space given over to customs checks and other assorted border work. It will need to hire its own food and standards inspectors to travel the globe checking the quality of products exported to the United Kingdom. It will need to increase the size of its own regulatory bodies.

The Foreign Office is doing some good and important work on preparing Britain’s re-entry into the World Trade Organisation as a nation with its own set of tariffs. But across the government, the level of preparation is simply not where it should be.

And all that’s assuming that May gets exactly what she wants. It’s not that the government isn’t preparing for no deal, or isn’t preparing for a bad deal. It can’t even be said to be preparing for what it believes is a great deal.
 
Mays speech will be really interesting, and will show up exactly how the EU are thinking and behaving. If she puts across a fair approach to our leaving and it gets thrown in our face, the UK will solidify a hard approach to our leaving.....
The country gave its view on 'a bad deal is worse than no deal' at the election mate. It ain't happening as they know it'd be catastrophic and the nasty EU bullied us into it simply won't wash
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top