Re: Brexit discussion
 

Well, they put Trump in as president, so who's the crazy party?:p:

You're getting desperate now we've got to Phase II, aren't you?

---------- Post added at 15:50 ---------- Previous post was at 15:46 ----------

Well, I wouldn't go that far!

Whoever we export to, the goods and services must meet the requirements of the importing country.

---------- Post added at 15:53 ---------- Previous post was at 15:50 ----------

I think the government have made it abundantly clear that we will be signing our own trade deals!

Re: Brexit discussion
 

What would be your desired end point 5-10 years down the line? I understand that you want no part of the UK to be aligned with the EU but what would you call a successful end to trade negotiations? Would you favour a free trade deal for everything, some sectors or a straight WTO MFN relationship?

Outside of trade, how would you see our interactions with organisations such as EASA, Europol, EMA develop? Again, nothing to do with them, an alignment partnership or membership?

Do you see the man on the street being financially better or worse off in 5-10 years time or are there other benefits joe public will see?

This isn't a challenge, I am genuinely curious to understand why you are so strongly in favour of Brexit

Re: Brexit discussion
 

To be fair, Mick has already answered your question. 'A clean and total break from a corrupted EU'.

So called 'hard Brexiteers' do not share your view that the sky will fall in if we leave this bureaucracy. Other countries can manage to trade with the EU without being a member of it, and so can we - and we will be able to trade with the rest of the world, which is developing faster than the EU, by the way.

Personally, I would be happy with that, but I also see the sense in trying to get our own trade deal with the EU in the same way as we want with other countries. There is no reason why this should not be a good deal for us as well as the EU because our rules and regulations are already fully aligned with theirs.

What we don't want, however, is to get drawn bank in by any trade agreement with the EU. We do not want an unreasonable price to be levied on us out of spite and nor do we want to be members of the EU, the Common Market or the Customs Union.

Those who think this will result in everyone being poorer are focussing on the possibility that we will be trading less with the EU without taking into account the enormous opportunities that exist elsewhere. It is a very blinkered and negative view to take.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Hi don't want to put words in to Micks mouth but a complete break with no trade deal, regulatory alignment or membership of EU led organisations is what you are suggesting here?

What sort of WTO tariff schedule would you like us to have? An economists for Brexit zero tariff schedule or something else? The EU is very protectionist of agriculture with 15-40% import tariffs under the WTO MFN schedule. Automotive is up around 9%. Should the UK do something similar to protect domestic industry?

Re: Brexit discussion
 

It's worth considering that for the most part trading partners will want us to have regulatory alignment with Europe anyway as it allows their companies to meet one standard to trade with both the UK and the EU.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

What will we be trading with the rest of the world that we don't currently?

Re: Brexit discussion
 

British Flags

Re: Brexit discussion
 

For companies that trade world wide they have to have product conforming to the regulations of the destination country, not just the EU. So for example selling into the the USA UL approval is needed on a range of products. Some UL tests exceed the EU requirements particularly fire risks. Think fridge/freezers that go up like in Grenfell tower. They all conformed to CE but that's not good enough for the states.

If you look at say the power brick for your laptop you'll see all the different markings of the worlds regulatory bodies showing the product has been tested and conforms. Keeping alignment with the EU isn't really a big deal IMO.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Interestingly, UL certification is not mandatory in the US unlike CE marking in the EU However, UL testing is done because the market likes it. Some regulations are stricter in the US than the EU and vice versa Food and chemical regulations in the EU are much stricter in the EU than the US for example (see the chlorinated chicken as an example)

In my field, pharmaceutical regulation is six of one and half a dozen of the other. The FDA in the US is very much YOU MUST and YOU MUST NOT. The EMA for the Europe is more about risk assessment and proving something is safe under all circumstances. There is a lot of work to harmonise standards through a group called the ICH along with MLHW/PDMA in Japan and more countries are joining all the time. The ultimate aim is to have a global medicines registration but we're a long way off yet!

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Giving them away for free is not really trading is it? ;) I mean, who would buy them ...

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Yes, In my sector: Industrial electronics we're pretty well world harmonised both for electrical safety (EN61010) and Electromagnetic compatability (EN61000). The regulatory bodies have all agreed the standards so although there are a number of certification markings, such as the "CE" mark, they all are to the same set of standards.

USA Customers demand the UL certification as it's almost impossible to get insurance otherwise. UL (Underwiters Laboratories) was set up after a rash of fires sent insurance claims rocketing in the early part of the 1900's and covers a range of products, not just electrical.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I would prefer a trade deal, but not continuing membership of the Common Market or Customs Union, and not at any price.

If I read Mick correctly, he would just like to pull out with no deal. I, however, would only support that if the deal being offered was unreasonable. A cost of £50bn is the absolute maximum I would wish to go to, and then only if it could be justified.

As far as WTO tariffs are concerned, you do know that tariffs are only applied if the importing country wants them to apply, right? The EU is a declining market for our exports, whereas our imports from the EU are increasing, so guess who will be more affected by the imposition of tariffs?

It's strange that you would want to use agriculture as part of your argument. The Common Agricultural Policy is a disgrace and benefits French farmers in particular. This country has long campaigned to get rid of it. The fisheries policy in particular gets my goat - our fishing industry is a pale shadow of what it used to be, and all those fish that are thrown back - dead - into the sea is unforgivable.

Basically, we can import and export agricultual products without the EU if necessary. I really wouldn't lose any sleep over that. It would be good to trade with our Commonwealth partners again, as we used to before the EEC.

As for the automotive industry, do you really think that Germany would welcome us applying tariffs on their exports to us? We buy an awful lot of cars from Germany, but we don't have to.

I certainly agree that Brexit will make a big difference to GB, but most of the important changes are positives; the negatives can be handled without major implications. Most of the panic comes from people who can't get to grips with how this will work, but over the next year or so, this will become clear.

Interesting to see how things have quietened down since we got to Phase II, which many remainers thought would never happen.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Oh yes, I was aware that we can set our own tariffs, hence the question - protectionism with high tariffs or free trade with low ones? Without a trade deal with the EU, we would have to fall back on our WTO MFN tariffs and it will be interesting to see what the government decides they want them to be. Under the WTO, everyone pays the same tariffs for import unless there's a deal so the German car industry would have the same leverage as Mini, Nissan, Honda, Vauxhall/Opel, etc. in the UK with exports i.e, none.

The EU by its nature is protectionist, hence the high tariffs on agricultural products which protect farmers not just in France but across the EU. In 2015, the EU tried to increase tariffs on steel to protect the European steel industry, including South Wales but the UK Government vetoed it.

As Mick isn't answering, you said the GB will be better off out of the EU. How will the person on the street be better off?

Re: Brexit discussion
 

You are making a lot of assumptions on tariffs. But in any case, if we have to accept tariffs by the EU, the government has already said that this is covered by the fall in the value of the pound.

In answer to your question, assuming the economy improves with our ability to increase exports to the rest of the world, the person in the street should benefit from that. Trade will continue with the EU, of course, we're not pulling up the drawbridge!

Re: Brexit discussion