1. Visiting from the US? Why not try DIYnot.US instead? Click here to continue to DIYnot.US.
    Dismiss Notice

When considering in or out:

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Nozzle, 3 May 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JohnD

    JohnD

    Joined:
    15 Nov 2005
    Messages:
    61,511
    Thanks Received:
    3,239
    Location:
    Fife
    Country:
    Cook Islands
    "If the UK left the EU, it could decide not to sign trade deals with some of the developing Commonwealth countries that the EU has signed deals with. It could also offer a more generous version of unilateral trade preferences. However, the UK would not be free to sign deals for one-way trade liberalisation, since it would be bound by the same WTO rules on trade agreements that the EU breached when it signed those deals. Moreover, while not replacing the EU’s trade deals would arguably help the poorest countries’ economies, UK exports to those States would logically be lower.

    The second argument is that the EU’s trade deals are a problem for the environment and public services, and give industry overly generous intellectual property protection, with the result (for instance) that prices of basic medicines rise due to extended patent protection. But this argument is equally made against many trade deals that the EU is not a party to at all – such as the recent
    Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

    So, while (stepping outside the Commonwealth for a moment) the planned EU/US trade agreement, known as TTIP, has attracted critics concerned about its effect upon the UK’s health care (among many other things), those issues would not magically go away if the UK, having left the EU, sought to negotiate its own trade agreement with the USA instead. The controversial parts of the draft deal are surely attractive to the US side as well as the EU side; it’s not as if the EU is in a position to issue non-negotiable demands to desperate, poverty-stricken Americans.

    The third argument is that the EU is not sufficiently interested in pursuing trade deals. As the facts discussed above show, it’s quite false to suggest that the EU is not interested in trade deals with Commonwealth countries, or that the UK’s EU membership makes it impossible for British businesses to increase their exports to those countries. But could it be argued that the UK alone would do a better job of negotiating such trade deals, and negotiating them more quickly, after Brexit?

    It’s true that it often takes years to negotiate EU trade agreements, and that some negotiations stall or slow down to a snail’s pace (with India, for instance). But this is not unique to the EU. Over twenty years ago, for instance, the Clinton administration developed a plan for a ‘Free Trade Area of the Americas’ – but it has never come to full fruition, and talks eventually fizzled out. There’s no guarantee that the UK alone would be able to reach agreements more quickly than the EU as a whole.

    In any event, as noted above, the EU already has agreed trade deals with 64% of Commonwealth countries, and is negotiating with another 26%. Some of the latter negotiations are likely to be completed by the time that Brexit took place – since that would probably happen two years after the referendum date, so likely in 2018 or 2019 (for more discussion of the process of withdrawal from the EU, see
    here).

    So the UK would have to ask perhaps three-quarters of its Commonwealth partners for trade deals to replace those already agreed with the EU. They might agree quickly to extend to the UK a parallel version of their existing arrangement with the EU, since that would not really change the status quo. But they might not be interested in negotiating any further trade liberalisation. If they are interested, they will ask for concessions in return, and this will take time to negotiate.

    For the remaining one-quarter or so of states, the UK will have to start negotiations from scratch, in some cases having to catch up with EU negotiations that are already underway. And there is no guarantee that these other states will want to discuss FTAs, or that negotiations would be successful.

    Overall then, there’s no certainty that UK exports to the Commonwealth would gain from Brexit. They might even drop, if some Commonwealth countries aren’t interested in replicating the EU’s trade agreements. Alternatively, they might increase – but it’s hard to see how any gain in British exports would be enormous, given the existence of so many FTAs between the EU and Commonwealth countries already, and the uncertainty of those states’ willingness to renegotiate those deals.

    Could this very hypothetical increase in exports to the Commonwealth make up for any loss in UK exports to the EU following Brexit? Obviously, this assessment depends on how Brexit would affect UK/EU trade relations. That’s a hugely complex subject, which I will return to another day, but suffice it to say that while I think a UK/EU trade deal after Brexit is likely, it’s far from guaranteed. And it’s hugely unlikely that any such trade deal would retain 100% of the UK’s access to the EU market. There are many reasons to doubt this could happen, but first and foremost: why would the EU send the signal that a Member State could leave the EU but retain all of its trade access? If it did that, the EU would be signing its own death warrant.

    The key fact to keep in mind here is that the UK’s trade with the Commonwealth is
    less than one-quarter of its trade with the EU. So to make up for even a 10% drop in exports to the EU, the UK would have to increase exports to the Commonwealth by more than 40%. How likely is that, when the vast majority of trade between the EU and the Commonwealth would already be covered by FTAs at that point?

    Taken as a whole then, it’s clear that the UK can remain a member of the EU and trade with the Commonwealth – and that this trade will only increase in future as more EU FTAs with Commonwealth states come into force or are negotiated. Leaving the EU, on the other hand, is liable to lead to reduction in trade with the remaining EU without any plausible likelihood that trade with the Commonwealth would increase by anything near the level necessary to compensate."


    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2015/12/10/the-commonwealth-and-the-eu-lets-do-trade-with-both/
     
  2. Sponsored Links
  3. PBC_1966

    PBC_1966

    Joined:
    1 Sep 2015
    Messages:
    2,409
    Thanks Received:
    210
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Country:
    United States
    How has the EU gotten away with breaching those rules then, and why shouldn't the U.K. be able to do likewise?

    This seems to be suggesting that it's wrong in those deals in which the EU is not involved, so the EU might as well join in as well. Two wrongs make a right?


    Perhaps not, but at least the U.K. would be free to try and get a better deal without being shackled by the EU.


    I'm not sure it's seriously been suggested that the EU was/is not interested in such deals, but as with everything else, it expects every member country to follow rigid EU rules in such trade, regardless of whether those rules might be detrimental to any one particular country.


    So long as they follow the EU's orders on how to do it, of course.


    Nor is there any guarantee that the EU could be faster than the U.K. alone, since each situation is different.


    Again, thereby binding EU members to those conditions regardless of what might be better for each member and the Commonwealth country concerned.


    And again, neither is there any guarantee that EU negoations already underway will be successful (however defined) or that the country concerned might not come to a quicker and (for Britain) more beneficial deal with the U.K. alone.

    But as several of us have stated multiple times already, membership of the EU has far more important ramifications than just trade and economics.
     
  4. Himaginn

    Himaginn

    Joined:
    29 Dec 2015
    Messages:
    2,972
    Thanks Received:
    55
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Times change, rules change, economic climate changes.
    Does it matter now? We're going forward not backwards.

    Or the accusation is misplaced? Did you not think of that? Or did you just dismiss it?
    It seems you're only asking the questions that suit your ideological argument.

    How long would it take? (we already have the official answer!) Why do you think that'll little ole UK could get a better deal than a bloc of 28 nations?
    Note your use of your ideological language and questions again.

    We already know that the EU works hard to ensure parity for every member country, so stop dismissing what doesn't suit your ideological argument!

    So as not to exact special privileges for any one nation. As above!

    So we can dismiss the suggestion about UK pursuing its own deals then, as there would be no benefit. Your ideological arguments again.

    Already dealt with! The EU works hard to ensure parity for all member nations! Stop repeating your ideological arguments!

    Repetition again!


    What like: freedom and ease to travel, live, work, study: better standard of living: more and easier access to other cultures' food, goods, languages, festivals, fashions: wider and more outgoing perspectives instead of the island nation philosophy: etc?
    [/I][/I]
     
    Last edited: 19 May 2016
  5. Gerrydelasel

    Gerrydelasel

    Joined:
    5 Jan 2016
    Messages:
    2,220
    Thanks Received:
    186
    Location:
    Lancashire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    This is patently obvious. One country speaks for itself and can veto any deal it likes. The TTIP is being carried out in secret and 27 of its beneficiaries don't particularly care about our wishes for our NHS. We have better historical relations and more in common with the US and commonwealth countries than most of those 27 others, yet we have to sit and wait for them.

    You can't seriously believe that? A one-size-fits-all deal cannot, by definition, be tailor made for one country. Clauses and compromises are written in for the benefit of 27 other countries with their own unique vested interests, clauses and compromises that drag the process out and that our businesses then have to follow even though they do not benefit -or are even detirmental to- us. Yes, we get some crumbs thrown our way too, but why not choose to have our own entire pie?

    Yes, and that is a negative of being in the EU. In any case it's not true, as noted above. We can't make a deal with India because Italian weavers want special dispensation, i.e. special treatment for one country's interests, etc.

    No. How on earth did you reach that conclsion?

    Incorrect. Outside the EU we can adopt freedom of movement and work with any country we choose and who agrees with us -most likely the Commonwealth and European countries, but who knows. For example, most of our foreign students come from outside the EU -we could make it easier for them.

    Fuel, food and taxes would remain the same or become cheaper without the EU's tariffs on non-EU goods.

    Again, being outside the EU allows those things from non-EU countries to be imported more esily. There are more cultures in this world that just the EU ones. The 'island nation' philosophy is a global, broad view philisophy. We want to be able to shake hands with every country in the world on our own terms, not wait for a generic non-British minister -representing a lot of geographic bretheren- to do it for us.
     
    Last edited: 19 May 2016
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. Himaginn

    Himaginn

    Joined:
    29 Dec 2015
    Messages:
    2,972
    Thanks Received:
    55
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    You're taking a part of a comment and applying it so out of context that the answer was in the original comment that John made, which you chose to isolate and ignore. It's causing circular arguments. You're becoming so PBC like. Is it typical of Brexiters?
    I've highlighted the answer for you, in red!


    Because the quote function is playing up so much, again. It's now become necessary to copy and paste quotes into word, in order to construct a logical response. So I won't bother responding to the rest of your comment.
    I suspect the rest of your comments can be similarly summarily dismissed anyway.
     
  7. EFLImpudence

    EFLImpudence

    Joined:
    7 Jul 2010
    Messages:
    30,960
    Thanks Received:
    3,345
    Location:
    Retired to:
    Country:
    Portugal
    I 'like' this assumption (assertion) that after a leave vote this British Government and establishment will better look after us and do everything in its power to make life better for us.

    .. and petrol will be cheaper. [​IMG]
     
  8. Gerrydelasel

    Gerrydelasel

    Joined:
    5 Jan 2016
    Messages:
    2,220
    Thanks Received:
    186
    Location:
    Lancashire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    But you dismissed nothing. The answer to your question was yes, the UK could negotiate a better deal for itself with the US, than a bloc of 28 nations.

    Who do you suggest the British Government and establishment would prefer to make life better for?
     
    Last edited: 19 May 2016
  9. EFLImpudence

    EFLImpudence

    Joined:
    7 Jul 2010
    Messages:
    30,960
    Thanks Received:
    3,345
    Location:
    Retired to:
    Country:
    Portugal
    THEMSELVES and their friends as was ever thus.
     
  10. Sponsored Links
  11. Gerrydelasel

    Gerrydelasel

    Joined:
    5 Jan 2016
    Messages:
    2,220
    Thanks Received:
    186
    Location:
    Lancashire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Ah, I see. You're saying the the British establishment, living and working in Britain, answerable to the British public, will make life better only for itself. Whereas Euro-ministers in Brussels, not answerable to us, really do have our livlihoods at heart, so we should remain in the EU since that safely takes the power out of British minister's hands.
    I wish I could find a flaw in your logic, but it's water tight.
     
  12. EFLImpudence

    EFLImpudence

    Joined:
    7 Jul 2010
    Messages:
    30,960
    Thanks Received:
    3,345
    Location:
    Retired to:
    Country:
    Portugal
    Yes. I did say this Government.
    What have they done for you?

    All improvements in peoples standard of living here have been brought about by struggle or socialist leaning governments when allowed.

    Not sure 'livelihoods' is the right word but to a certain extent, yes.
    Do you think they are all monsters?

    Oh ok, I thought you disagreed.
     
  13. Gerrydelasel

    Gerrydelasel

    Joined:
    5 Jan 2016
    Messages:
    2,220
    Thanks Received:
    186
    Location:
    Lancashire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    [​IMG]
     
  14. JohnD

    JohnD

    Joined:
    15 Nov 2005
    Messages:
    61,511
    Thanks Received:
    3,239
    Location:
    Fife
    Country:
    Cook Islands
    Oh, Gerry, are you clinging to the foolish belief that MEPs and Ministers are evil alien lizards?

    Rather than elected representatives of the citizens, and delegates from the constituent governments?
     
  15. EFLImpudence

    EFLImpudence

    Joined:
    7 Jul 2010
    Messages:
    30,960
    Thanks Received:
    3,345
    Location:
    Retired to:
    Country:
    Portugal
    What's it got to do with Samuel L.Jackson, anyway?
     
  16. Himaginn

    Himaginn

    Joined:
    29 Dec 2015
    Messages:
    2,972
    Thanks Received:
    55
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    That was never my question!
    I asked, how long would it take, and why do you think the UK could do better on its own?
    I never asked ,"could the UK do better on its own?" We already know the answer to that one! It couldn't!
     
  17. You patriot you, not.
     
Sponsored Links
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page