UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Well, 53% of our imports will suddenly become more expensive as they come from the EU while 3-4% of the EUs imports will become more expensive as they come from the UK.

Of course the money goes in to the respective government pockets but it's the importing customer who eventually pays

You assume that the imposition of tariffs by the EU would mean that we would still want to have those goods from the EU. What if we could get the same goods from the US, cheaper and with no tariffs?

I don't know the answer to this, but if we are making more from imposing tariffs on the EU, what's to stop us using that money to reduce nullify any price increase to the consumer?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well stop keep making it up then, jfman! Job done.

The Fisheries Bill has already passed Parliament, the rest will be in the government's proposals that are part of these negotiations. The government knows exactly what it wants and the degree to which it is prepared to compromise. In the end, it's all about quotas, and given we are on the front foot on this one, why is this so complicated to your mind? Who said we would agree to unregulated fishing?

Do you take weeks to weigh up whether it's safe to cross the road? Of course not, so let's get real about the likelihood of getting decisions made on these matters in a straight forward and efficient manner.

Running the fifth, sixth or seventh (I lose track) biggest economy is somewhat more complex than crossing the road. The fact you view these as equitable simply proves my point that you only have a simplistic understanding of Government.

It may be true to say that the last three meetings have not taken place, but papers are being passed back and forth, which may be sufficient for now, until a meeting is required to thrash out any sticking points.

It may not be sufficient. You are simply assuming as such because it suits your ludicrous contention that Government can continue unaffected by Coronavirus.

The reason it was important for me to point out who would lose more if tariffs were applied was to remove the lead curtain from your eyes that prevents you from seeing that the EU does indeed want a trade deal with no tariffs as it is in their best interests.. It annoys them to death that they cannot hold us over a barrel on other matters given that we just want a straight forward deal.

Sometimes I think you can't see the wood for the trees, jfman.

Without knowing what the tariffs are and quantity of goods moving in each direction post Coronavirus it’s simply impossible for you to offer anything other than speculation as to who would lose out more by imposing tariffs. Again, your simplistic analysis ignores the associated supply chains - further goods and services, further people in employment and further tax revenues for Government. It’s not as straightforward as where the trade deficit lies.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Running the fifth, sixth or seventh (I lose track) biggest economy is somewhat more complex than crossing the road. The fact you view these as equitable simply proves my point that you only have a simplistic understanding of Government.



It may not be sufficient. You are simply assuming as such because it suits your ludicrous contention that Government can continue unaffected by Coronavirus.



Without knowing what the tariffs are and quantity of goods moving in each direction post Coronavirus it’s simply impossible for you to offer anything other than speculation as to who would lose out more by imposing tariffs. Again, your simplistic analysis ignores the associated supply chains - further goods and services, further people in employment and further tax revenues for Government. It’s not as straightforward as where the trade deficit lies.

Ahem! Who's speculating, exactly? The government still says it wants a deal by the end of the year. You are speculating when you say it's not long enough. My 'crossing the road' quip was drawing attention to the big deal you make of everything and then claim it can't be done. You have form on this where the EU is concerned. Look over all your negative Brexit poxts! Were you ever right?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Ahem! Who's speculating, exactly? The government still says it wants a deal by the end of the year. You are spsculating when you say it's not long enough. My 'crossing the road' quip was drawing attention to the big deal you make of everything and then claim it can't be done. You have form on this where the EU is concerned. Look over all your negative Brexit poxts! Were you ever right?

I was right about the fact we wouldn’t leave in March and October and that the public would, through a further general election or a referendum have to endorse Brexit a further time. That happened.

You can try to regurgitate the same old tired debates Old Boy - and I’m entitled to view Brexit as a bad idea. A bad idea the public voted for doesn’t make it any less a bad idea. However that is the past and we’ve all (apart from you seemingly) moved into.

The Government does want a deal by the end of the year. I’d like a deal by the end of the year. You are equating that with what we should do if there isn’t, regardless of how close the negotiations are to success. With is a very flawed comparison.

[Carth]

Are you two married?

You argue like you are

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You assume that the imposition of tariffs by the EU would mean that we would still want to have those goods from the EU. What if we could get the same goods from the US, cheaper and with no tariffs?

I don't know the answer to this, but if we are making more from imposing tariffs on the EU, what's to stop us using that money to reduce nullify any price increase to the consumer?

If there's no FTA, the EU will have to impose their WTO MFN rate on our exports to them and we will have to impose our WTO MFN rate on imports from them, the same as we do with the US now. To have no tariffs for imports from the US or anywhere else, we need an FTA otherwise the MFN rate needs to be used.

In a lot of cases, we could 'shop around' for a cheaper deal if the cost plus duty is less than an import from the EU but this is 53% of our imports. The burden is huge.

We certainly could subsidise imports if we wanted. However, these would need to apply across the board and not just imports from the EU. If we decide that only certain countries imports are subsidised then WTO rules step in and our exports to countries not in the subsidy list can get slammed for additional duties (countervailing duties)

[gba93]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Or have they?

Looks like they have:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52208591
UK 'committed to post-Brexit trade deadline'

The chancellor is also asked whether it is a good time for the UK to leave the EU if the economy is going to be so damaged by the pandemic.
Rishi Sunak says: "We have left the European Union, that has happened, we are now working on the final terms of trading arrangements. That work is carrying on."
He says negotiating teams spoke earlier this week and would hold more talks this month and in May.
"We remain committed to the timeline for concluding talks and negotiations, albeit over video conference rather than in person," he adds.



Still not convinced?

Well, as I posted earlier

There have been discussions about recommencing the talks via videoconferencing. So far, these have not been possible

They haven’t even agreed how they will video-conference, so, no...

The discussions next week are to discuss a timetable for talks in April and May - so it’s "talks about talks", not actual negotiations.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by gba93

Looks like they have:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52208591
UK 'committed to post-Brexit trade deadline'

The chancellor is also asked whether it is a good time for the UK to leave the EU if the economy is going to be so damaged by the pandemic.
Rishi Sunak says: "We have left the European Union, that has happened, we are now working on the final terms of trading arrangements. That work is carrying on."
He says negotiating teams spoke earlier this week and would hold more talks this month and in May.
"We remain committed to the timeline for concluding talks and negotiations, albeit over video conference rather than in person," he adds.

Still not convinced?

No. To say now we're open to an extension virtually guarantees an extension and removes the sense of urgency that an optional extension is supposed to provide.

On top of that the messaging around any extension will need to be carefully planned. Considering the Government is asking the vast majority of people to stay at home, and the Coronavirus response requires compliance.

While I'm sure the vast majority of people would be reasonable it only takes a handful of morons whose nationalism tells them this is a betrayal to encourage civil disobedience or worse.

We've got folk setting fire to mobile telecoms infrastructure, mugging nurses and spitting at police officers saying they have Coronavirus. People are already anxious. If the Government are to request an extension, or agree to an EU request for one, I'm certain the revelation won't be because some hack threw it into a press conference to Rishi Sunak.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Well, as I posted earlier

They haven’t even agreed how they will video-conference, so, no...

The discussions next week are to discuss a timetable for talks in April and May - so it’s "talks about talks", not actual negotiations.

They are currently at the document-exchanging stage. The government is still commited to the end of the year as things stand. Everything else is speculation.

---------- Post added at 18:17 ---------- Previous post was at 18:15 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

No. To say now we're open to an extension virtually guarantees an extension and removes the sense of urgency that an optional extension is supposed to provide.

On top of that the messaging around any extension will need to be carefully planned. Considering the Government is asking the vast majority of people to stay at home, and the Coronavirus response requires compliance.

While I'm sure the vast majority of people would be reasonable it only takes a handful of morons whose nationalism tells them this is a betrayal to encourage civil disobedience or worse.

We've got folk setting fire to mobile telecoms infrastructure, mugging nurses and spitting at police officers saying they have Coronavirus. People are already anxious. If the Government are to request an extension, or agree to an EU request for one, I'm certain the revelation won't be because some hack threw it into a press conference to Rishi Sunak.

Still speculating against the government, I see.

[jfman]

Speculating for the Government Old Boy. You seem to, unfortunately, be stuck in the toxic rhetoric of Brexit. Which is a shame really - the way it seems to permeate every single post you make. It is unnecessarily divisive. Brexit is done. The national interest is the national interest for everyone - those who voted remain and those who voted leave.

You clearly know very little about Government if you think such a major policy shift would be announced at half five on a Wednesday night by a Cabinet Minister who is neither the PM, Foreign Secretary or Minister for International Trade for whom the policy would cross cut their Ministerial portfolios.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

They are currently at the document-exchanging stage. The government is still commited to the end of the year as things stand. Everything else is speculation.

---------- Post added at 18:17 ---------- Previous post was at 18:15 ----------



Still speculating against the government, I see.

I rarely say this, but it’s well worth saying now: I agree with Jfman wholeheartedly on this point.

An extension to the transition would be a very significant move, following a decision taken by the PM and the EU representatives, and not flagged in advance for all sorts of reasons. It certainly isn’t going to be announced in a public health crisis press conference by a deputy while the Prime Minister is getting over a life-threatening infection in hospital.

An extension is not going to happen, right up to the moment that it is. At which point it will be announced on Boris Johnson’s terms. I believe the government negotiators will continue to work on the assumption that the original deadline stands, but informal contact with the EU on the extension issue will have been made. I also believe that when the extension is announced it will amount to 6-9 months.

There’s almost certainly going to be an extension because no government in Europe presently has the resources to meet the original deadline with a good trade deal in place. This is not a betrayal, it is just realpolitik, caused by the small matter of the worst global pandemic for a century.

[jfman]

And I've agreed with a lot of Chris recent input on this. Indeed - the terms of how an extension got announced could be anything such as the EU asking the UK to agree to one in order to give Boris favourable optics. In the EU their respective populations are probably less interested in this, and it's an easy sell for them.

I would be surprised if there isn't an extension. There just isn't the appetite or time for people to focus on the next part of the agreement yet and the political cover is there too because aside from a few diehards I doubt anyone would be upset if it got delayed so the world can focus on the pandemic.

[pip08456]

If an extention is deemed necessary then so be it but Brexit isn't done until we conclude the transition.
Brexit is still very much "in progress".