Re: Brexit discussion
 

There is that old saying Mr K of keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer.;)

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I think it's a shrewd move, very Machiavellian, he'll either make her look good or hang himself and not cause much mischief in the process plus as den said keep your enemies closer

Re: Brexit discussion
 

This is pretty desperate stuff. Paywalled, but going by what can be seen for free really not worth paying for, or even finding a way to work around the paywall.

Hard Brexit will hurt EU more than Britain, warn university researchers as divorce talks begin in Brussels

Think they've been taking lessons in statistics from Boris Johnson. 526,830 jobs in a population of about 66 million is a tad more 'ouch' than 1.209 million in a population of over 440 million, and a 4.48% drop in GDP is most definitely more 'ouch' than a 1.54% drop, although the writer of the article did try and claim the study forecasts a drop in UK GDP of 1.21% under the WTO scenario later on, which it doesn't.

I admire The Telegraph's cheek in considering the article premium content.

Going to WTO rules serves no-one but other than ideologues and demagogues I'm not aware of anyone who thinks it's a good idea. The Telegraph are now at least happy to admit there would be a high cost to the UK dropping to WTO rules.

When the Express start to admit there is a downside to going WTO then the apocalypse must be near., even if it will be to entirely blame the EU and get the excuses in for their non-stop propaganda-fest not panning out as they claimed. That must be one of the harbingers of it.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I sense a lot of these pro-Brexit journalist pundits are desperately trying to find a way of how they wangle themselves out of it when the **** hits the fan. Find somebody to blame and try and preserve some credibility is the usual path - May or Corbyn or Immigrants or The EU or Wayne Rooney - they'll all cop the blame from these journalists, who never tell people what to think or vote of course.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Of course, WTO rules would be the second best option for everybody, which is why that is an unlikely outcome. Neither the EU nor GB wants that.

However, even if these figures are correct (although they were probably conjured up by somebody using spurious factors), you shouldn't forget that job losses through departing from the EU with WTO rules would be offset by new trade deals. The rest of the world is far bigger than the EU.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

That's why we have 35 FTAs in place already being part of the EU (OK, Liechtenstein isn't too exciting but South Korea, Switzerland and Norway are) Plus we, as current members of the EU are in the process of implementing another 42, including Canada and South Africa and have finalised another 23.

Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

That's 100 countries we are going to have to renegotiate with before we start with any others

Re: Brexit discussion
 

And let's not forget we have an experienced, intelligent entrepreneur, Sir James Dyson who has vast experience with World Trade arrangements, has said Europe, is a shrinking market.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Think this one has already been visited. He doesn't manufacture in the UK and most of his sales are to Asia.

He also is not an unbiased observer having had various legal issues with the European Union.

He moved his manufacturing to Malaysia and Singapore, both part of the ASEAN Free Trade Area, in 2003. He may have the luxury of having most of his market outside of Europe and being able to move his manufacture thousands of miles away, some other companies aren't so fortunate.

If you subscribe to the view that the UK can go zero tariff and suddenly be full of James Dysons it's all good. If on the other hand you have concerns over the UK pretty much eliminating manufacturing here and importing the vast majority of our food it's smarter to look at ways to smooth our exit.

I'm not aware of any unbiased observer or agency that considers what Dyson suggests to be in the UK's best interest.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

The UK doesn't need to negotiate trade deals with every nation on Earth. We can choose which we prioritise and the terms we agree with them. The smaller, less important ones we can still trade with under the basic WTO rules if other arrangements prove impossible to make. Trade is a two way thing and a some people are forgetting that lots of countries will be very keen to trade with the UK and won't have anything to gain by making the process of doing so more complicated than it has to be. Quite the reverse in fact.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Lots of countries have relatively little to gain through basic trade agreements with the UK as WTO MFN tariffs are already relatively low. What does have to be negotiated is the thorny issue of harmonisation of standards across a variety of sectors.

It's easy and very fast to get a trade deal with a nation if you're happy to bend over and agree to whatever they ask of you. Whether that's going to be the best deal for your own nation is of course highly debatable.

India and Australia both want immigration concessions - preferential access to the UK for their citizens. TTIP taken to the next level will be what the United States requires. Canada have already used CETA to get concessions from the European Union and Justin Trudeau has been quite open in his desire that Canada use CETA as a starting position to negotiate a more favourable deal with the UK than the one they were able to from the EU. CETA is, itself, a corporate dream.

If anyone seriously thinks this'll all be simple and every nation wants trade deals that involve simple removal of pretty small tariffs they're crazy. Every country in the world of any power and influence knows that the UK will be under economic pressure and will take the opportunity to take advantage.

Any nation that fails to do so is negligent with regards to their own citizens. We would do exactly the same to any other nation in our position, as would any nation on the planet with the capability. They owe it to their citizens to extract the best possible outcome for them.

Best of all, Parliament has no capacity to reject such deals. The Government of the day can happily agree to deals that are detrimental to the UK for purely political reasons, such as that they are desperate to prove that they can make a success of leaving the European Union, in order to win votes.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/co...vidence-16-17/

Re: Brexit discussion
 

As regards harmonisation of standards I can comment from the sector that I work in (Industrial electronics) that standards are pretty well harmonsed across the planet. The CE and UL / FCC (American) requirements are almost identical and all equipment has to conform.

Take a look at your laptop / phone charger.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

As far as I'm aware very little equipment of that kind manufactured in the UK, so not a lot of benefit from a trade deal on that one. Won't save much on imports either, a fair amount of the finer products made in China are zero-rated on tariffs.

If only standards were so harmonious throughout.

---------- Post added at 16:28 ---------- Previous post was at 16:15 ----------

On the subject of a transitional period it's actually debatable whether it's even possible.

https://www.ft.com/content/fc1a5466-...4-046c9b27f631

I very much doubt that pretty much anyone demanding that the UK 'just get on with it' and leave the EU ASAP is aware what this will actually entail. I very much doubt there are many people, full stop, that know what it would actually entail.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Like the US who have just slapped a 220% tariff on Bombardier?

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Quite. Slapped on their closest trading partner, Canada, with the UK as collateral damage.

Some might say it's not the best time to be leaving the European Union, and certainly not the Customs Union and Single Market.

As far as the United States' behaviour goes which part of 'America First' didn't she understand? The US has a very, very long history of heavily subsidising various sectors of its economy, and the aerospace industry pretty much requires subsidy due to the huge time between making the massive investment in R&D and production and actually receiving the funds from sales.

The level of hubris required to think that the US policies would change to accommodate the UK is astonishing.

To paraphrase Donald Trump he is the President of Baltimore and Baton Rouge, not Belfast.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Yeah that's called the real world. It's happened and we're still in the EU, the EU hasn't prevented it and isn't immune from similar action by the US if they decide it's warranted so I have no idea what your point is. Maybe you see the EU as some sort of benevolent nanny or you're fearful about the UK's ability to cope with world trade just as it always did until the EEC morphed into the EU. The EU has and is far more likely to have serious trade and security issues (including Nato) with the US than we ever are but when that happens I don't suppose you'll pop up here highlighting it will you. That wouldn't suit your argument after all.