Brexit (Old)

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Damien

Today the EU-Japan trade deal comes into effect making it the biggest free trading block in the world: https://www.ft.com/content/a72d4672-...6-5db4543da632

Liam Fox is taking credit for this one - https://twitter.com/LiamFox/status/1083129001697296384

Well and truly called out in the replies!

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Damien

If we have no deal from next month we're going to lose tariff-free trade with:

• Japan (3rd largest economy in the world)
• Germany (4th largest economy in the world)
• France (6th largest economy in the world)

And as for 'they need us more than we need them' two months before we leave they've got a trade deal with an economy larger than ours.

How many trade deals has our wonderful Trade Secretary Dr Fox signed ? He needs to do 36 before Brexit day and he claimed it would be 'easy'.
One is the answer.....

Maybe the good Dr should have stuck to medicine where his 'skills' are more needed ...

[Carth]

*tongue in cheek*

I wonder if this brilliant EU -Japan deal includes some kind of 'freedom of movement' aspect, in which case I fully expect to see thousands of Eastern European 'electronics engineers' rushing to Japan at the first opportunity

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Mr K

How many trade deals has our wonderful Trade Secretary Dr Fox signed ? He needs to do 36 before Brexit day and he claimed it would be 'easy'.
One is the answer.....

Maybe the good Dr should have stuck to medicine where his 'skills' are more needed ...

No trade deals can be signed before Brexit day. Agreements can be in place and ready for signing though.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by pip08456

No trade deals can be signed before Brexit day. Agreements can be in place and ready for signing though.

We can negotiate and sign agreements but they can't be implemented until either we have ended the transition period or leave with no deal. See paragraph 120 here - https://assets.publishing.service.go...1_.pdf#page=27

However, it looks like nothing has been signed yet but we are close with Switzerland, Israel and South Africa - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46949431

I would imagine a lot is on hold at present as a lot relies on the relationship we will have with the EU down the line

[jfman]

If we are into the realms of the imaginary I’d imagine there’s virtually no trade deals “imminent” as the Theresa May deal wouldn’t require them until the end of the transition period.

I think we are months away from even basic ones.

[Sephiroth]

Trade deals are an interesting question. If, for example, we zero tariffed a whole load of stuff under WTO rules, countries that can offer stuff at a better price and quality that the generic definition of particular stuff might only want to sign a trade deal if other countries are put at a disadvantage. Wine comes to mind whereby in the absence of a trade deal with the EU would disadvantage them against those wine countries who have a deal with us.


Is Fox the right man to horse trade this sort of stuff? I can think of very few MPs who have the skills.

[BenMcr]

If you zero tariffed wine purely under WTO rules you'd have to do it for everyone in the WTO who trades wine.

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e..._e/fact2_e.htm

1. Most-favoured-nation (MFN): treating other people equally Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.

Some exceptions are allowed. For example, countries can set up a free trade agreement that applies only to goods traded within the group — discriminating against goods from outside. Or they can give developing countries special access to their markets. Or a country can raise barriers against products that are considered to be traded unfairly from specific countries. And in services, countries are allowed, in limited circumstances, to discriminate. But the agreements only permit these exceptions under strict conditions. In general, MFN means that every time a country lowers a trade barrier or opens up a market, it has to do so for the same goods or services from all its trading partners — whether rich or poor, weak or strong.

So to persuade a country to sign a specific trade agreement for wine, you would need to keep tariffs on wine, as the benefit of the agreement is to remove the tariffs.

Some talk in Brussels, obviously conjecture, that extending Article 50 by two years and sorting out the final deal in that time would solve the problems since it would mean no backstop.

---------- Post added at 12:48 ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 ----------

Originally Posted by BenMcr

If you zero tariffed wine under WTO rules you'd have to do it for everyone in the WTO who trades wine, so how do you do a better deal with some countries for wine after that?

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e..._e/fact2_e.htm

I think that might be what he is saying? That the only reason to do a trade deal is so you can have the lower tariffs to yourself whereas you're right WTO would mean it's all level. Not sure how much of an incentive that would be though.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

Some talk in Brussels, obviously conjecture, that extending Article 50 by two years and sorting out the final deal in that time would solve the problems since it would mean no backstop.

---------- Post added at 12:48 ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 ----------



I think that might be what he is saying? That the only reason to do a trade deal is so you can have the lower tariffs to yourself whereas you're right WTO would mean it's all level. Not sure how much of an incentive that would be though.

Two years is a trap. The chances are the world will be in recession by then and the tide will sway against change.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I think you are contradicting yourself. In a Parliamentary vote where there is a 1 vote margin, only 1 person needs to change their mind. In the case of the Referendum, 1 million minds would need to change.

Your numbers above are arbitrary; that's why a majority of 1 is the accepted democratic approach - except, it seems, by some Remainers

You have a problem with context. If the people were asked what colour the passports should be then a small majority might be acceptable. If they were asked to redefine the economic and structural future of the country for a generation then such a majority is unacceptable and, arguably, immoral.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You have a problem with context. If the people were asked what colour the passports should be then a small majority might be acceptable. If they were asked to redefine the economic and structural future of the country for a generation then such a majority is unacceptable and, arguably, immoral.

"Arguably" is what this thread is about. In Parliament, a 1 vote majority for a trivial law has the same weight as one of major significance.

The MPs are our representatives. Therefore, when we vote in a referendum, we are acting in a peer capacity - they voted in the Referendum as well.

There needs to be consistency of margin treatment - unless you are a Remainer struggling for a valid argument.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

That’s why I differentiated between the loan-givers, and those who hid the bad loans in CDOs - two cheeks of the same arse (one set initiated the problem, the other hid the extent of the problem).

Those who played "pass the parcel" were the ones who brought the Financial System down, as they made it impossible to understand how bad the problem was, so panic ensued.

Indeed. Also, those who granted the loans in the first place had a duty to lend responsibly.

Some MP's have started complaining that their 10 day February holiday has been cancelled to carry on trying to sort out Brexit. They also called for the taxpayer to refund any money lost for holidays booked. Now we know where their priorities lie:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-holidays.html

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by jfman

This is magnificent logic. Banks should make profits as private industry but shouldn’t be liable for their bad lending and investment decisions (the Government should cover that).

Reminds me of people saying they shouldn’t have to sell their homes to cover the costs of living in a care home. Capitalist in life and socialist in death.

I am enjoying the distraction from actual Brexit chat though.

This cartoon-like Capitalist "Good", Socialist "Bad" banter is just a smokescreen to cover up the cracks in where are today in the UK (and elsewhere). So many people have grown up conditioned to believe that other people are other people's responsibility, not theirs.

They are also content (right word?) to watch themselves being manipulated by those to seek to exploit them and to say nothing.

Brexit brilliantly illustrates this. The Hard Brexit players are gleefully waiting for March 29. If they get hands on the reigns of power, here is the future that awaits us, courtesy of Dominic Raab.

In 2011, Raab said in a policy paper for the right-wing think-tank the Centre for Policy Studies that holiday pay, the minimum wage, maternity leave and pension contributions for British workers are all ‘strait jackets’ for British businesses and should all be scrapped in certain scenarios:

https://tompride.files.wordpress.com...raitjacket.pdf

Not surprised these people want to leave the EU, where all of the above would be illegal.

---------- Post added at 14:14 ---------- Previous post was at 14:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

"Arguably" is what this thread is about. In Parliament, a 1 vote majority for a trivial law has the same weight as one of major significance.

The MPs are our representatives. Therefore, when we vote in a referendum, we are acting in a peer capacity - they voted in the Referendum as well.

There needs to be consistency of margin treatment - unless you are a Remainer struggling for a valid argument.

In Parliament, agreed but we assume that the said vote is made on a bill that has been planned, defined and debated.

The same for the Referendum is a false equivalence. There was no plan, no details, no written process, the opposite in fact.

There is no "struggle" here for a valid argument. I already have one and have (tried to) articulate why it is so. You just don't agree. History is littered with nations making, in hindsight, bad decisions via plebiscite. This just adds another to the list ..

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

<SNIP>

In Parliament, agreed but we assume that the said vote is made on a bill that has been planned, defined and debated.

The same for the Referendum is a false equivalence. There was no plan, no details, no written process, the opposite in fact. [SEPH]: There were months of public debate before the Referendum; the ballot sheet was the written process and was quite clear and unambiguous.

There is no "struggle" here for a valid argument. I already have one and have (tried to) articulate why it is so. You just don't agree. History is littered with nations making, in hindsight, bad decisions via plebiscite. This just adds another to the list . [SEPH]: In your opinion. A margin of 1 million disagree with you.