Life line

[Bodd]

Mrs May was handed a lifeline in Brexit negotiations when a new study revealed using World Trade Organisation rules instead of striking a deal with the European Union will turn Britain into an economic powerhouse – but her Government will need to carry out a number of key preparations to make it a success.

Not my words

 

[Bodd]

Harvard economist and entrepreneur Michael Burrage reveals countries which do not have a trade deal with the EU and rely on WTO rules strongly outperform their rivals.

However, to implement the system correctly requires a number of important preparations to ensure supply chains are not broken and trade can continue with minimum disruption.

Mr Burrage’s work appears to confirm that Britain will thrive if the EU forces a no deal.

It follows work by Economists for Free Trade which showed that the Treasury would collect £80 billion a year based on the revenue created by moving on to the World Trade Deal on WTO rules.

If this were to happen the UK would also keep its £39 billion which had been earmarked as a divorce bill to paid to the EU.

 

[Bodd]

If this is right it must be one thing that we all agree is good for the country

 

[noseall]

If this is right it must be one thing that we all agree is good for the country

Yes, however......

 

[noseall]

Britain will thrive

….eventually.

One fella in politics reckoned it would take about 50 years to disentangle ourselves from the EU and begin being profitable again. I think his name was Rees Mogg or summat.

 

[noseall]

Harvard economist

It's funny how none of the UK expert economists have come up with anything financially positive about a no-deal Brexit. Perhaps we need more Harvard types along with some singing and dancing elephants to cheer us up.

 

[noseall]

Not my words

Who did write those words?

 

[Yafo]

Who did write those words?

A journalist from the express.

Unfortunately bodd was misled by the headlines and not the substance.

If he had read further and investigated some of the figures he might not have highlighted it

 

[Bodd]

The advantage of using WTO terms is the UK is not bound by EU rules or committed to agree to its red tape and regulations, while it is able to strike lucrative free trade deals around the world.

Mr Burrage points out that exports by the UK to 111 countries outside the EU under WTO rules grew by 2.9 per cent between 1993 and 2015.

This was more than three times greater than the 0.9 per cent growth in exports to EU countries in the same period and one percent higher than trade with the 62 countries which have trade agreements with the EU, making it the “best option” for Britain.

Mr Burrage said: “Mrs May could deliver exactly what she promised at Lancaster House, and stay well behind all her red lines without the least difficulty.

“There would be no quarrel about the sequencing of negotiations, no reason for UK negotiators to be supplicants on their knees, since they would finally have some leverage.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

If this were to happen the UK would also keep its £39 billion which had been earmarked as a divorce bill to paid to the EU.

In the opinion of government officials, the 'divorce bill' will still have to be paid.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Mr Burrage points out that exports by the UK to 111 countries outside the EU under WTO rules grew by 2.9 per cent between 1993 and 2015.

This was more than three times greater than the 0.9 per cent growth in exports to EU countries in the same period and one percent higher than trade with the 62 countries which have trade agreements with the EU, making it the “best option” for Britain.

That's not much, either way, in twenty two years. Can that be right?

2.9% of what?
0.9% of what?
1.9% of what?

So, overall, exports grew by (a lot?) less than 2.9%.

 

[noseall]

If the UK is doing a trillion pounds worth of trade with the EU per year and it grows by a small percentage, this then makes a mockery of the big percentage growth on the thousand quids worth we do with the rest.

Your figures are meaningless Bod and probably show the trade with the the EU. in a more favourable light.

 

[noseall]

Unfortunately bodd was mislead

Hes not the brightest RWR.

 

[Bodd]

They would have no reason to make concessions or further payments to the EU, other than for past commitments and for participation in selected future joint activities.

“And Mrs May domestic political opposition would be limited to those who want to reverse the referendum, a far less daunting task than at present. The government could then concentrate on making free trade agreements with the EU and others over the transition period."

In the EU’s no deal preparation notices to stakeholders, Brussels spells out a bleak future where they warn of driving and pilots’ licences becoming invalid, access to the bloc’s airline market rescinded and no mutual recognition of conformity assessment.

Britain would have to strike a series of bilateral agreements with EU members because there even with WTO rules if there are no formal relations with the EU then trade is heavily restricted in both directions.

For example, without the valid paperwork for goods to circulate in the EU’s market exports would have to named importer inside the bloc to re-certify products – a considerable cost to business.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

They would have no reason to make concessions or further payments to the EU, other than for past commitments and for participation in selected future joint activities.

I.e.the 'divorce bill'.

Britain would have to strike a series of bilateral agreements with EU members because there even with WTO rules if there are no formal relations with the EU then trade is heavily restricted in both directions.

EU member countries are not allowed to make bilateral agreements with non-EU countries.