Sir Ivan Rogers Resigns.

[L00b]

I don't see what you think this means "the UK is only the 8th's highest contributor per capita to the EU budget out of the 28". The insertion of the per-capita completely changes the meaning.

It doesn't in the context posited by my sentence, namely the EU27 don't owe the UK a living despite the fact that the UK is a net contributor to the EU.

 

The UK is not the only country, nor the only EU member state contributing to the EU budget on a net basis. Nor is it the highest contributing EU member state, by far. And EU membership entails receipts just as much as contributions.

 

In any talk about the net cost of EU membership, it doesn't get any clearer than the per capita level, whether negative (in case of a EU member state receiving more from the EU than it pays in) or positive (for net contributing EU member states).

There is a massive net cost to the EU of placing trade barriers between themselves and the UK. So the cost argument is nonsense.

You forget the gain. The expression 'cost benefit analysis' also includes 'benefit': if you're going to negotiate with a third party, it pays to remember at all times what in it for them either way of the argument. Else you eventually get blindsided.

There is no need at all for us to pay for access to the EU market.

That is correct, if you want the same level of access to the Single Market for the UK, as e.g. Canada or Korea enjoy.

 

The only fly in the ointment is the fact that you ain't going to get that within the 2 years posited by the Article 50 procedure (which is about negotiating the UK's exit, not negotiating the new trading relationship), and historical evidence (Canada and Korea FTAs, & others) shows an ETA of approximately 7 years for that from starting trading negotiations.

We need not offer money in return for this access as we are offering them something of greater value in return: access for them to the UK market.

There is no need for us to pay for part of the running costs of the EU government, any more than they need to pay for the costs of our government.

You do, and there is a need, if you want 'better than' WTO terms or (Canada, Korea -like) third party FTA terms. Particularly if you're in a hurry.

 

It's the UK who decided it wants to exit, not the EU who decided it wants to kick the UK out.

The entire "cake" argument is nonsense. We're talking about a bilateral trade arrangement between the UK and the EU. We don't pay them, and they don't pay us. We don't rule them and they don't rule us. They meet our import standards when they sell to us and we meet theirs when we sell to them.

Refer above. No argument with you if the UK is happy to jump onto WTO terms come March 2019, whilst FTA negotiations continue (I'm sure they'd start on the quiet before March 2019).

 

But then, the UK political class is not exactly making a lot of approving noises about that particular outcome, are they? So far it still sounds like they are hoping to keep as much of the EU club benefits as possible, i.e. more than e.g. Canada and Korea enjoy under their respective FTAs.

It's all extremely simple. We only have to discuss in which (if any) areas they wish to erect trade barriers following Brexit and whether we will simply accept these or impose other barriers to them in response. If they wish to make it difficult for us to sell financial services, they may have to live with difficulty selling us food and cars. The default for us will be no barriers at all, because that's what we believe in.

If it's so simple, why has there been all this faffing about from May and consorts for the last 6 months (and counting) and why are the UK's top-level diplomats at the coalface still being mushroomed 6 months on?

 

It sure ain't the EU's fault, they've been waiting and asking for the UK to get its ass in gear since June 24

[unbeliever]

It doesn't in the context posited by my sentence, namely the EU27 don't owe the UK a living despite the fact that the UK is a net contributor to the EU.

 

The UK is not the only country, nor the only EU member state contributing to the EU budget on a net basis. Nor is it the highest contributing EU member state, by far. And EU membership entails receipts just as much as contributions.

 

In any talk about the net cost of EU membership, it doesn't get any clearer than the per capita level, whether negative (in case of a EU member state receiving more from the EU than it pays in) or positive (for net contributing EU member states).

You forget the gain. The expression 'cost benefit analysis' also includes 'benefit': if you're going to negotiate with a third party, it pays to remember at all times what in it for them either way of the argument. Else you eventually get blindsided.

That is correct, if you want the same level of access to the Single Market for the UK, as e.g. Canada or Korea enjoy.

 

The only fly in the ointment is the fact that you ain't going to get that within the 2 years posited by the Article 50 procedure (which is about negotiating the UK's exit, not negotiating the new trading relationship), and historical evidence (Canada and Korea FTAs, & others) shows an ETA of approximately 7 years for that from starting trading negotiations.

You do, and there is a need, if you want 'better than' WTO terms or (Canada, Korea -like) third party FTA terms. Particularly if you're in a hurry.

 

It's the UK who decided it wants to exit, not the EU who decided it wants to kick the UK out.

Refer above. No argument with you if the UK is happy to jump onto WTO terms come March 2019, whilst FTA negotiations continue (I'm sure they'd start on the quiet before March 2019).

 

But then, the UK political class is not exactly making a lot of approving noises about that particular outcome, are they? So far it still sounds like they are hoping to keep as much of the EU club benefits as possible, i.e. more than e.g. Canada and Korea enjoy under their respective FTAs.

If it's so simple, why has there been all this faffing about from May and consorts for the last 6 months (and counting) and why are the UK's top-level diplomats at the coalface still being mushroomed 6 months on?

 

It sure ain't the EU's fault, they've been waiting and asking for the UK to get its ass in gear since June 24

 

 

If free trade really is not free, how much should we charge the EU for access to the UK internal market?

[Obelix]

If free trade really is not free, how much should we charge the EU for access to the UK internal market?

 

You seem mired in the delusion that a small island nation off the coast of Greater Europe is of any significant economic interest to the EU at all.

 

Especially when the requirements for selling into it are going to slowly diverge from the rest of the EU. You already have funny plugs unlike the standard Euro ones for example...

[unbeliever]

You seem mired in the delusion that a small island nation off the coast of Greater Europe is of any significant economic interest to the EU at all.

 

Especially when the requirements for selling into it are going to slowly diverge from the rest of the EU. You already have funny plugs unlike the standard Euro ones for example...

 

We're not small. They're about 4 times larger than us and they have a lot more to lose financially from trade barriers.

 

The funny plugs, which I do not approve of, are a rather minor thing as the voltage and frequency are the same.

I'd really like to use French plugs and French distance units, but there are bigger things at stake.

 

The value to the EU of access to the UK internal market exceeds the value to the UK of access to the EU market by £4bn/month. There is no rational reason why we should pay them to perpetuate this arrangement. If anything, they should pay us.

 

So how much shall we ask for? We could ask for £1bn/month and they'd still be £3bn/month better off than otherwise.

[Obelix]

Or they could just cut off access to the market to the City of London and let it move naturally to Frankfurt and Paris.

 

Then the UK really isn't worth anything at all.

[unbeliever]

Or they could just cut off access to the market to the City of London and let it move naturally to Frankfurt and Paris.

 

Then the UK really isn't worth anything at all.

 

It wouldn't move to Frankfurt or Paris. If it moved at all it would go to another genuine major financial centre like New York or Singapore.

Everybody outside the EU bubble can see what a basket-case the Eurozone is.

 

The UK is doing great (contrary to the Europhile predictions) and the EU is lurching from one crisis to the next. We're not small or weak and you can't talk us becoming so.

[L00b]

If free trade really is not free, how much should we charge the EU for access to the UK internal market?

I thought we went over that at length already, over the past few months

 

No free trade is ever fully 'free': every country of any size, in a supranational club like the EU or not, has national interests at stake at any given time, that will influence trade with countries X, Y and Z and negotiations that relate to same. This is exactly why trading agreements, free or not, take years to negotiate. This is also why e.g. the EU wanted to temporarily tariff dumped Chinese steel out of the EU market last year, but the UK vetoed the measure for reasons best known to No.10.

 

To take an overly simplistic approach to the matter, ask yourself why isn't every state with a capitalistic economy engaging in it already? (clue: none is). Ask yourself why do we need a WTO and its rules at all?

 

But to get back to your question, since any commodity is only ever worth what its market will pay for it, why don't you just ask the EU27, and report on their answers?

 

Should make for entertaining reading

Edited January 5, 2017 by L00b

[unbeliever]

I thought we went over that at length already, over the past few months

 

No free trade is ever fully 'free': every country of any size, in a supranational club like the EU or not, has national interests at stake at any given time, that will influence trade with countries X, Y and Z and negotiations that relate to same. This is exactly why trading agreements, free or not, take years to negotiate.

 

To take an overly simplistic approach to the matter, ask yourself why isn't every state with a capitalistic economy engaging in it already? (clue: none is). Ask yourself why do we need a WTO and its rules at all?

 

But to get back to your question, since any commodity is only ever worth what its market will pay for it, why don't you just ask the EU27, and report on their answers?

 

Should make for entertaining reading

 

Sorry, you're proposing that I should personally contact the heads of government of 27 nations will my question and then tell you what they say? Does that sound remotely practical to you?

 

The WTO runs its entire operation for £150m/year, a fraction of a percent of the EU operational budget.

 

Anybody have an actual opinion on what we should charge the EU for access to our internal market?

[L00b]

Sorry, you're proposing that I should personally contact the heads of government of 27 nations will my question and then tell you what they say? Does that sound remotely practical to you?

It certainly sounds logical

 

And as relevant to this debate, as your proposing that I should put a periodical figure on the notional value of access to the UK market to 27 EU member states

 

Now, considering your last 2 replies to what I would, perhaps self-servingly, deem considered replies to points you raised, let me know when you decide to resume serious debate. I don't engage in trying to get a tune out of peeing in a violin.

[unbeliever]

It certainly sounds logical

 

And as relevant to this debate, as your proposing that I should put a periodical figure on the notional value of access to the UK market to 27 EU member states

 

Not really.

There are many making the case that the EU will charge us for market access. If this is so then we shall surely also charge them. If our charge is more, which based on the trade balance it surely should be, then we make a profit so no problem.

If they want their court to rule on us, then our courts will surely gain the power to rule on them. Since that is impractical neither of these powers will be useable.

 

We need to stop thinking of ourselves as a supplicant asking for a favour or privilege. They need us at least as much as we need them. I don't think Mr Rogers understands this and he threw his toys out when our government would not accept the standard EU narrative.