The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

[Hairyloon]

Neither one of us is to blame, the game is rigged to suit the establishment and has been for centuries.

 

We are all to blame because we accept that that is how it is.

 

As for nominating somebody, most of the people that I know are decent individuals who wouldn't care to get involved in something so obviously corrupt.

Circular argument.

The system is undemocratic and deliberately so because it suits the incumbents to retain the system that they profited by.

 

What can be done about it?

 

A public vote of no confidence in the administration of the nation.

Organising one won't be easy, but there is a petition to that effect pending on the Government's website.

I think they don't dare publish it, but can find no grounds to formally reject it.

 

Heard the American expression " Go fight City Hall " as an expression of a hopeless cause?

How many times was that said to the Suffragettes?

[Carlinate]

We are all to blame because we accept that that is how it is.

 

 

Circular argument.

 

 

A public vote of no confidence in the administration of the nation.

Organising one won't be easy, but there is a petition to that effect pending on the Government's website.

I think they don't dare publish it, but can find no grounds to formally reject it.

 

 

How many times was that said to the Suffragettes?

 

We are living in a Plutocracy, not the Democracy they try to con us with.

 

Short of armed insurrection little can be done about it, and I wouldn't recommend that as the Establishment have an army!

 

We can organize as many petitions as we like but it will be to no avail.

 

The majority of the population take little interest, accept the status quo and let them get on with it.

 

Unless Brexit turns out to be a total disaster on a magnitude even I don't believe then little will change.

 

Minor cosmetic adjustments will take place from time to time in order to quell the troublesome but nothing of consequence affecting where the power sits will happen.

 

Similar situation in most countries, some are worse than us, but of the major established western countries we are just about the worst when it comes to the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few and the ultimate ownership of the land we live on.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiNppfAv_TUAhWXF8AKHTWXDDoQFggtMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.duchyofcornwall.eu%2Flatest%2F%3Fpage_id%3D130&usg=AFQjCNE8YHLzWfbMd_eakq4IsGVTmPXvHA

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwic1ZG2wPTUAhUFLMAKHTWPADYQFghVMAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fsociety%2F2014%2Foct%2F14%2Fuk-inequality-wealth-credit-suisse&usg=AFQjCNFT5yn5EZiEVgJwbN0h12gaqRkNHw

 

Still, now that we are leaving the EU and the people responsible for this state of affairs are going to have no outside input into their actions I'm sure it will all work out splendidly.

[Puggie]

 

Meaning, if the UK leaves the EU customs union and goes for WTO rules, then an EU purchaser of Japanese cars has a choice of a UK-built one with 10% tariff, or a Japanese-built one with zero tariff. I very much doubt freight costs will make up for 10%, they're usually between $500 and $600 (per car, bulk shipping, oil barrel price-variant) for a Japan-EU trip, and may well fall a bit after the FTA mentioned.

 

 

This argument I keep hearing that trading under WTO obligations is somehow a 3rd rate option is unfounded. As you'll know some of our largest markets for British-made cars are non-EU markets. When Jaguar, Mini, Aston etc. export their beautiful creations to America, China, Brazil, and the Middle East they do so under WTO rules.

 

When the rest of the world trades with the European Union they do so under WTO rules.

[L00b]

This argument I keep hearing that trading under WTO obligations is somehow a 3rd rate option is unfounded. As you'll know some of our largest markets for British-made cars are non-EU markets. When Jaguar, Mini, Aston etc. export their beautiful creations to America, China, Brazil, and the Middle East they do so under WTO rules.

More bovine excrement, Vicar?

 

The EU takes more than half of UK-made cars and accounts for the bulk of the UK car industry growth:

Production growth was predominantly driven by overseas demand, with global appetite for British-built cars rising by 10.3% to an all-time high of 1,354,216 – a second consecutive annual record. Around eight out of every 10 cars manufactured in the UK is now exported, bound for one of 160 markets worldwide.

 

It was continuing economic recovery across Europe, however, that accounted for the bulk of the growth. Exports to the rest of the EU grew 7.5% to 758,680 and accounted for more than half of all UK car exports. Furthermore, Europe supplies the majority of components within UK-built vehicles, underlining the critical importance of tariff and barrier-free trade to future UK automotive production.

(from: the horse's mouth)

 

Not the first time I've corrected your Red Tops-derived knowledge. It's tedious.

 

Incidentally, I'll let you work out the entirely predictable consequences of compliance and customs checks and procedures between the EU and the UK (post-Brexit) on (just-in-time) UK car manufacturing processes and their associated costs. Put it that way: green and leafy Kent's going to be turned into a giant car park for articulated lorries. Permanently. Hey, they voted leave: serves them right, says I

 

If you have the appetite, you can then work out the entirely predictable consequences of WTO tariffs applied to (still more expensively built-) British-made cars bound for the EU.

When the rest of the world trades with the European Union they do so under WTO rules.

Not quite, since 'the rest of the world' doesn't trade 'with the EU', but with its Member States individually, and such trade is under the WTO-compliant trade agreements (free or not) negotiated by the EU on behalf of its Member States, with MFN as the default.

 

Complicated stuff, all that international trade and agreements and WTO and whatnot, innit?

 

I think Mr Barnier summarised the situation quite aptly today. In diplo-speak, his speech was the equivalent of telling Davis, Fox <etc.>, to their face, that they just don't have a f clue. Which should surprise no-one with a couple of grey cells to rub together

 

In particular, Mr Barnier stated that there cannot be a "frictionless" border even inside the Customs Union: he has effectively ruled out the deep and comprehensive FTA that the Tories were banking on to sell their red lines. Make no mistake, this is a significant speech, which will likely have far-reaching political consequences within the UK.

Edited July 6, 2017 by L00b

[Berberis]

When the rest of the world trades with the European Union they do so under WTO rules.

 

No they do not and the news today debunks this:

 

EU and Japan reach free trade deal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40520218

 

This may also help: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/june/tradoc_149622.pdf although its a bit out of date given the above announcement with Japan.

[stifflersmom]

More bovine excrement, Vicar?

 

The EU takes more than half of UK-made cars and accounts for the bulk of the UK car industry growth:

(from: the horse's mouth)

 

Not the first time I've corrected your Red Tops-derived knowledge. It's tedious.

 

Incidentally, I'll let you work out the entirely predictable consequences of compliance and customs checks and procedures between the EU and the UK (post-Brexit) on (just-in-time) UK car manufacturing processes and their associated costs. Put it that way: green and leafy Kent's going to be turned into a giant car park for articulated lorries. Permanently. Hey, they voted leave: serves them right, says I

 

If you have the appetite, you can then work out the entirely predictable consequences of WTO tariffs applied to (still more expensively built-) British-made cars bound for the EU.

Not quite, since 'the rest of the world' doesn't trade 'with the EU', but with its Member States individually, and such trade is under the WTO-compliant trade agreements (free or not) negotiated by the EU on behalf of its Member States, with MFN as the default.

 

I think Mr Barnier summarised the situation quite aptly today. In diplo-speak, his speech was the equivalent of telling Davis, Fox <etc.>, to their face, that they just don't have a f clue. Which should surprise no-one with a couple of grey cells to rub together

 

In particular, Mr Barnier stated that there cannot be a "frictionless" border even inside the Customs Union: he has effectively ruled out the deep and comprehensive FTA that the Tories were banking on to sell their red lines. Make no mistake, this is a significant speech, which will likely have far-reaching political consequences within the UK.

 

I get that the volumes of trade and associated range of goods may be higher for UK interests, but given that the EU have recently announced free trade deals with Canada and Japan, which include tariff free access to the single market but without fees or freedom of movement of people (there have been a few visa concessions made, nothing significant)....if the EU doesn't wish to enter in to a similar free trade deal with the UK then this is surely a punitive, political decision, rather than a logical, economic one. The point is, why would the EU actively seek to negotiate free trade deals with the two of the top ten world's biggest economies but leave out the 5th, for anything other than punitive reasons? If they want to punish the UK for leaving and send out a message to any other "rebel" states then they should just come out and say it, but to pretend that tariff free access to the single market isn't possible without the "freedoms" is nonsense. Whichever side of Brexit you sit on, it's clear that a tariff free or low tariff deal is financially, mutually beneficial. If that isn't achieved then it will have been a political decision rather than an economic one.

[L00b]

I get that the volumes of trade and associated range of goods may be higher for UK interests, but given that the EU have recently announced free trade deals with Canada and Japan, which include tariff free access to the single market but without fees or freedom of movement of people (there have been a few visa concessions made, nothing significant)....if the EU doesn't wish to enter in to a similar free trade deal with the UK then this is surely a punitive, political decision, rather than a logical, economic one. The point is, why would the EU actively seek to negotiate free trade deals with the two of the top ten world's biggest economies but leave out the 5th, for anything other than punitive reasons? If they want to punish the UK for leaving and send out a message to any other "rebel" states then they should just come out and say it, but to pretend that tariff free access to the single market isn't possible without the "freedoms" is nonsense.

Reading your post, I am reminded that most people seem to equate 'FTA' between 2 trading nations (or groups thereof), i.e. no tariff on some stuff and fewer barriers, as equating 'Single Market membership', i.e. no tariff nor barriers on anything whatsoever.

 

That is far, so very far from being the case: an FTA is simply an improvement from standard (MFN) WTO terms, reached by the parties to the agreement, playing on their respective strengths and horse trading.

 

In that context, the Customs Unions (of which e.g. Turkey is part) is e.g. a 'halfway' between Single Market membership and EU FTAs, and the EEA is a 'halfway' between Single Market membership and the Customs Unions.

 

Single Market membership ('EU') > EEA > Customs Union > FTA > WTO MFN terms > WTO basic terms.

 

That is how and why CETA took 7 years and the just-announced Japanese FTA took 4 years: you start with broad statements of intent, you end up with relatively narrow set of rules and scope of goods to which no tariffs apply. And where the EU is concerned, under the tutelage of the ECJ of course.

 

So no, it is not about being punitive at all: it is about matching respective best interests and achieving mutually-beneficial reciprocal access conditions, through levels of negotiation and due diligence

 

Ultimately, and pragmatically, Japan > the UK in the global economic stakes, so the UK will likely get worse FTA terms than Japan. That wouldn't be the EU being punitive on the UK, it would simply be a fair reflection of the UK's strengths relative to those of Japan as a preferred trading partner for the EU.

 

Now the UK could have kept its better (best available, really) terms, but it doesn't want to be a member anymore (and to keep those best terms, you must be a member), and more than that, it wants to be a full third party state (no SM, no CU, no ECJ): so, in a nutshell, and logically (and legally), out it goes, to become that full third party state it wants to be, and it can start negotiating those FTAs (with the EU, with Canada, with Korea, with Japan, with <...>) from scratch.

 

That's exactly what the EU and Barnier have told the UK since day one, btw: settle your EU affairs first, then we'll talk new relationship/trade.

 

Now it's hardly the EU's or Barnier's fault, if May & her Brexit cohorts are suffering from a terminal case of delusions of grandeur and are continually stepping on their collective appendage, is it?

Whichever side of Brexit you sit on, it's clear that a tariff free or low tariff deal is financially, mutually beneficial.

It isn't for the UK, for domestic socio-economic reasons, any more than it is for the EU member states. But then, that supposes both a less insular and a longer-term view of the question, than the UK seems to have adopted so far.

If that isn't achieved then it will have been a political decision rather than an economic one.

Brexit has never been, and never could be, an economic decision.

 

Nor could its consequences ever be attributed to the EU: it was, and remains at all times, 100% a Tory erm...UK decision.

Edited July 6, 2017 by L00b

[Hairyloon]

We are living in a Plutocracy, not the Democracy they try to con us with...

 

We can organize as many petitions as we like but it will be to no avail.

 

Yeah, that is why we have to organise a vote: petitions are not a democratic representation.

 

But petitions on the government site have to be answered if they get enough signatures: think about how they can answer the one I spoke of...

There are only two options that I can see: either give us the vote as requested or admit that this is not democracy.

[Carlinate]

Yeah, that is why we have to organise a vote: petitions are not a democratic representation.

 

But petitions on the government site have to be answered if they get enough signatures: think about how they can answer the one I spoke of...

There are only two options that I can see: either give us the vote as requested or admit that this is not democracy.

 

Had a look on the government website, they have suspended petitions because of the recent General Election (?) whilst they appoint a new petitions committee which needs to be set up by the House of Commons.

 

I imagine they will get onto that straight away and are probably losing sleep over it's current non existence.

[Hairyloon]

Had a look on the government website, they have suspended petitions because of the recent General Election (?) whilst they appoint a new petitions committee which needs to be set up by the House of Commons.

 

I imagine they will get onto that straight away and are probably losing sleep over it's current non existence.

 

You may note that I did say "pending". It was submitted in January...