Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Jebus_lives]

I don’t understand why people think we could get better trade deals as a separate entity to the EU.
My understanding is that the EU has the upper hand when negotiating deals because they’re massive. The U.K. in isolation is pretty small and won’t have the same sort of bargaining power, surely?!

The UK is the 5 largest economy in the world, we aren't a small nation.

But, the EU is the second largest market, so when negotiating, it's in a very strong position.

 

[Barnfred 55]

I don’t understand why people think we could get better trade deals as a separate entity to the EU.
My understanding is that the EU has the upper hand when negotiating deals because they’re massive. The U.K. in isolation is pretty small and won’t have the same sort of bargaining power, surely?!

When entering into any trade deals, you have to be careful not to adversely affect industry and services in your own country. Tariff free cheap imports on beef, for instance, could be potentially devastating for our own beef industry.

A union the size of the EU has to cater for the needs of 28 member countries, each having their own particular industries that need protecting. It just stands to reason that this not only puts massive restrictions on the EU, but also means any trade deal negotiated cannot possibly benefit every member state equally. In fact, some trade deals must be in some way detrimental to some member states.

By negotiating separately as the UK we can concentrate on those that specifically suit us. We may be small in comparison to the EU, but as an individual nation we still have the worlds 5th biggest economy after the US, China, Japan and Germany. Not exactly small fry.

 

[Jebus_lives]

When entering into any trade deals, you have to be careful not to adversely affect industry and services in your own country. Tariff free cheap imports on beef, for instance, could be potentially devastating for our own beef industry.

A union the size of the EU has to cater for the needs of 28 member countries, each having their own particular industries that need protecting. It just stands to reason that this not only puts massive restrictions on the EU, but also means any trade deal negotiated cannot possibly benefit every member state equally. In fact, some trade deals must be in some way detrimental to some member states.

By negotiating separately as the UK we can concentrate on those that specifically suit us. We may be small in comparison to the EU, but as an individual nation we still have the worlds 5th biggest economy after the US, China, Japan and Germany. Not exactly small fry.

We do have to consider though, that in any trade negotiations with other countries, they will also make stipulations upon us in order to secure trade. We will have to sign up to EU standards if we want trade with the EU, likely have to accept preferencial treatment of US agriculture and no trade deal with China if we get a deal with the US.

 

[Barnfred 55]

I take the point, but it's the only funding that's been announced.

And as I've said to you a number of times now, it's 2 years away and there's more important things like Brexit to sort out. But that doesn't mean it can just be dismissed as if it doesn't exist. Plus there is still 2/7ths of the current EU funding (approx. £3b) that we can quantify which is being dismissed too.

We're just going around in circles.

 

[Barnfred 55]

We do have to consider though, that in any trade negotiations with other countries, they will also make stipulations upon us in order to secure trade. We will have to sign up to EU standards if we want trade with the EU, likely have to accept preferencial treatment of US agriculture and no trade deal with China if we get a deal with the US.

Well we already operate to EU standards so that won't be a problem. We'll see with the US. There are trade deals to be done that can be mutually beneficial to both parties. If they insist on putting in place onerous pre-conditions then we simply move on. I suppose we'll find out just how special our special arrangement is.

 

[Barnfred 55]

That for me is the biggest shame of all this, as the human impact of this decision seems to have been lost entirely. You'll get some BS platitudes about workers rights that no one can name, yet they're happy to demolish the biggest freedom of all because they don't like people speaking Polish at their local Tesco.

This post just epitomises everything that is wrong with this thread.

 

[Groucho]

If you follow the link it’s an article about how it all stinks.

 

[Jebus_lives]

And as I've said to you a number of times now, it's 2 years away and there's more important things like Brexit to sort out. But that doesn't mean it can just be dismissed as if it doesn't exist. Plus there is still 2/7ths of the current EU funding (approx. £3b) that we can quantify which is being dismissed too.

We're just going around in circles.

I think you're right we are just going round in circles. I think we both understand the point, it doesn't need to be laboured over.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Well we already operate to EU standards so that won't be a problem. We'll see with the US. There are trade deals to be done that can be mutually beneficial to both parties. If they insist on putting in place onerous pre-conditions then we simply move on. I suppose we'll find out just how special our special arrangement is.

My summary of the US- UK negotiation strategy

United States-United Kingdom Summary of Specific Negotiating Objectives

https://t.co/ogiyXaX7u9

This is effectively a request for UK to remove trade barriers for the US, without them opening theirs in return. It offers no incentive for UK trade.

There are no real benefits outlined for the UK, nothing about Financial services.

There is mention of removing barriers on agriculture, pricing in the NHS, it also wants no trade deal with China.

More importantly though is the removal of barriers in regard to US exports. The big issue with this is if we align our standards with that of the US, then it will inevitably make it more difficult for us to negotiate with the EU - who will expect their standards to be met when we seek to negotiate with them after Brexit.

From one 'protectionist racket' frying pan and into another 'protectionist racket' fire. The difference being, that the UK, under the banner of the EU, starts with a much better negotiating position with the US due to the relative strength of the market. The UK is in a much weaker position.

I accept it's only a strategy, but it does give some indication of the US direction of travel.

 

[Barnfred 55]

My summary of the US- UK negotiation strategy

I accept it's only a strategy, but it does give some indication of the US direction of travel.

Where did you get that from. Is it legit? I can't imagine that the US would make their trade strategy public knowledge before entering into any trade negotiations. Showing your hand doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Carl O'Ancelotti]

Having an element of control over our borders would also enable us to have a more structured approach to immigration. As a nation we rely on immigration to make sure our services and certain industries run smoothly. Our immigration policy should not be based around numbers or percentages, it should be based on need. We should be bringing in people to meet demand for jobs to be filled. Control over immigration from the EU will open the door for more immigration from the rest of the world, on which there are currently severe restrictions.

I didn't count on our government messing things up quite as much as they did.

Except that you won't have any control because (we are told) after Brexit you will have an open unmanned land border with the EU enabling anyone from an EU country who wishes to enter the UK to do so at will.

This is the problem with the Brexiteers' arguments and why they are shot down in this thread; they are based on contradictions, fantasies, and blatant lies.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Where did you get that from. Is it legit? I can't imagine that the US would make their trade strategy public knowledge before entering into any trade negotiations. Showing your hand doesn't make any sense at all.

It's absolutely legit.

U.S.-UK Trade Agreement Negotiations

Preparations for U.S.-UK Trade Negotiations On October 16, 2018, at the direction of the President, United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer notified Congress of the Trump Administration’s intent to negotiate a trade agreement with the United Kingdom, once the UK leaves the EU in...

ustr.gov

It doesn't really matter if you show your strategy when you're operating from the strongest position.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Fair do's.

I don't know the answer to the highlighted bit. It is something only time will tell, and even then a lot of it will be subjective. I always believed that a preferential trade agreement between the UK and the EU was doable because it would suit both parties. It doesn't have to a free trade single market on everything, but one that would be mutually beneficial and protected our respected industries. It would then enable us to strike trade deals with other nations specific to our own needs rather than the collective needs of the 28 EU member states.

Having an element of control over our borders would also enable us to have a more structured approach to immigration. As a nation we rely on immigration to make sure our services and certain industries run smoothly. Our immigration policy should not be based around numbers or percentages, it should be based on need. We should be bringing in people to meet demand for jobs to be filled. Control over immigration from the EU will open the door for more immigration from the rest of the world, on which there are currently severe restrictions.

I didn't count on our government messing things up quite as much as they did.

Firstly, there has been no suggestion from either the government or from leave voters that they want immigration to remain at current levels, but that 'rest of the world' migrants make up a larger share. Tens of thousands has been the constantly repeated figure, which all facets of industry, science and academia have said would be madness.

Secondly, migrants from the rest of the world currently make up around half of total migration, which doesn't suggest that there are severe restrictions being placed on their numbers, but by all means share what you believe the restrictions to be, and what you would like those restrictions reduced to (free movement for all perhaps?)

Thirdly, we have had several years actual data that allows us to compare 'managed/controlled' migration versus free movement where the government don't meddle at all. On what metric are you basing your view that the managed kind is in any way better (either on a humane level or a practical level) than free movement?

This post just epitomises everything that is wrong with this thread.

Sorry, I know you would like to just post stuff and have no one challenge them.

 

[Emlynsqueakyvoice]

You think you've seen it all then you see joey66 pulling up another poster on grammar and spelling. There are no words.

 

[tim cahill]

The UK is the 5 largest economy in the world, we aren't a small nation.

But, the EU is the second largest market, so when negotiating, it's in a very strong position.

But we’re smaller than the EU and US who I assume we do the majority of our trade with.