The Brexit Thread

[Saint4805]

41 minutes ago, Rich NATA said:

Am I correct in thinking that's no different from a Bangladeshi-style; Haitian-style; Liberian-style; Sudanese-style or Yemeni-style deal, right? 

Pretty much. Basically any country that doesn't have an official deal with the EU and trades with them on WTO terms. He's calling it an Australian style deal in attempt to fool people into thinking it's a good outcome. 

Edited December 11, 2020 by Saint4805

[davy-hay]

12 minutes ago, Saint4805 said:

Pretty much. Basically any country that doesn't have an official deal with the EU and trades with them on WTO terms. He's calling it an Australian style deal in attempt to fool people into thinking it's a good outcome. 

Wto is not that bad. 

 

The Wto are here to help the world 

[mariokempes56]

11 minutes ago, davy-hay said:

Wto is not that bad. 

 

The Wto are here to help the world 

Do you not  get bored?

[davy-hay]

1 hour ago, mariokempes56 said:

Do you not  get bored?

What do the Wto exist for then if not to help? 

[mariokempes56]

13 minutes ago, davy-hay said:

What do the Wto exist for then if not to help? 

Tbf good question..

[davy-hay]

It's amusing how ppl think am trolling when am not... With the exception or Paul Dickov.  Just like his name 

[phart]

Car manufacturer Nissan said it has "no plan B" in the event of a no-deal Brexit which would make the firm's Sunderland plant unviable.

Europe chairman Gianluca de Ficchy told a news conference at the plant in October 2019: "If a no-deal scenario means the sudden application of WTO tariffs, we know in that case our business model won't be sustainable in the future.

"Our industry works with lower margins and if we are in a situation in which tomorrow we have to apply 10% export duties to 70% of our production, the entire business model for Nissan Europe will be in jeopardy."

In several interviews since then, global chief operating officer Ashwani Gupta has maintained that remained the case.

A Nissan source said: "We have been planning the whole time on the basis that there will be a deal.

This is going to happen across the board in every industry if it goes to WTO rules.

[vanderark14]

On 12/9/2020 at 10:29 PM, davy-hay said:

Could just as easily be an opportunity 

The UK is alughing stock being driven off a cliff by a bunch of posh wanks who still believe the uk has influence on the world. 

 

[vanderark14]

 

[Lairdyfaeinverclyde]

Is this just the start?

 

Armed Navy boats on standby to protect UK waters in case of no-deal Brexit (msn.com)

[aaid]

14 hours ago, davy-hay said:

Wto is not that bad. 

 

The Wto are here to help the world 

The term "trading on WTO terms" is a bit of a misnomer.   The role of the WTO is to facilitate trade between member states and to act as a dispute resolution mechanism, it does not itself set levels of tariffs and quotas.   Rather what happens is that each member state sets its own tariffs and quotas and submits them to the WTO.  In effect this means that all trading nations know what will be the conditions applied when trading with another nation.   So if for example, the UK,decided to put a tariff of 10% onto widgets, then that would be applied to any widget exports to the UK from any state.  

It's also worth pointing out that it only applies to imports.  So just because the UK has a 10% tariff on widgets, that doesn't mean that export of widgets *from* the UK to say the USA would also be subject to 10% tariff, they'd be subject to whatever tariff the UK puts onto widget imports - and would be the same regardless of whether they came from the UK, Germany, Canada or whatever.

The exception to this is where two states - or in the case of the EU, a trading bloc - have agreed a bilateral free trade agreement, which is what we are currently failing to do with the EU.   Again Free Trade agreement is something of a misnomer, an FTA defines the terms under which two states can trade freely, it doesn't necessarily mean that there are no costs to trade, there may well be tariffs that apply, but these will supersede "WTO terms" as they will have been mutually agreed by the two parties to the agreement.

The Single Market - and the associated Customs Union - of the EU could be described as a Free Trade Agreement but it is way way more complicated than that.  Essentially it provides an open market across its member states where there are no quotas or tariffs applied between them for those goods and/or services between member states.   Essentially, while a member of the SM, the UK - in reality, UK companies and consumers - could import as many widgets from Germany, Poland, Malta, etc as they wanted at whatever price the supplier was charging and vice versa.    

In order to ensure the market is "free" there are a huge wide ranging set of regulations but in essence they exist to ensure that a widget manufactured anywhere in the EU is done to the same standard and under the same conditions so that all widget manufacturers have the same opportunities to sell into the market and that widget consumers can be confident that their widgets will be of the required quality.

What the UK is currently trying to negotiate is a situation where it can still have free access to trade in the single market, ie. tariff and quota free, but that it doesn't have to meet all the regulations of that market - in particular the level playing field and I suspect it is this rather than fish quotas which may derail the deal.

Dealing under WTO terms represents a base level for trade, the lowest common denominator.   By definition, any free trade agreement between two parties would be better - you would not go to the trouble of negotiating a custom trade deal to trade on worse terms than you would if you didn't have one.

The gamble - and its always been a gamble - is that in no longer having to adhere to the rules of the EU, this would allow the UK to broker deals with other countries that would be at more favourable terms than currently and that increased trade with those countries would make up for the inevitable increased cost and loss of trade with the EU.

Deal at your own risk as far as that is concerned but given that the small number of trade deals the UK has signed up to since it left the EU have just been rolling over the terms of the existing EU trade deal with those countries - hence they've been able to be done quickly - it doesn't fill me with a huge amount of optimism that they will be able to do that.

There are of course matters other than trade, so you also have to consider whether the inevitable hit to trade and GDP is a cost worth paying.  I don't, others do.
 

[davy-hay]

12 minutes ago, aaid said:

The term "trading on WTO terms" is a bit of a misnomer.   The role of the WTO is to facilitate trade between member states and to act as a dispute resolution mechanism, it does not itself set levels of tariffs and quotas.   Rather what happens is that each member state sets its own tariffs and quotas and submits them to the WTO.  In effect this means that all trading nations know what will be the conditions applied when trading with another nation.   So if for example, the UK,decided to put a tariff of 10% onto widgets, then that would be applied to any widget exports to the UK from any state.  

It's also worth pointing out that it only applies to imports.  So just because the UK has a 10% tariff on widgets, that doesn't mean that export of widgets *from* the UK to say the USA would also be subject to 10% tariff, they'd be subject to whatever tariff the UK puts onto widget imports - and would be the same regardless of whether they came from the UK, Germany, Canada or whatever.

The exception to this is where two states - or in the case of the EU, a trading bloc - have agreed a bilateral free trade agreement, which is what we are currently failing to do with the EU.   Again Free Trade agreement is something of a misnomer, an FTA defines the terms under which two states can trade freely, it doesn't necessarily mean that there are no costs to trade, there may well be tariffs that apply, but these will supersede "WTO terms" as they will have been mutually agreed by the two parties to the agreement.

The Single Market - and the associated Customs Union - of the EU could be described as a Free Trade Agreement but it is way way more complicated than that.  Essentially it provides an open market across its member states where there are no quotas or tariffs applied between them for those goods and/or services between member states.   Essentially, while a member of the SM, the UK - in reality, UK companies and consumers - could import as many widgets from Germany, Poland, Malta, etc as they wanted at whatever price the supplier was charging and vice versa.    

In order to ensure the market is "free" there are a huge wide ranging set of regulations but in essence they exist to ensure that a widget manufactured anywhere in the EU is done to the same standard and under the same conditions so that all widget manufacturers have the same opportunities to sell into the market and that widget consumers can be confident that their widgets will be of the required quality.

What the UK is currently trying to negotiate is a situation where it can still have free access to trade in the single market, ie. tariff and quota free, but that it doesn't have to meet all the regulations of that market - in particular the level playing field and I suspect it is this rather than fish quotas which may derail the deal.

Dealing under WTO terms represents a base level for trade, the lowest common denominator.   By definition, any free trade agreement between two parties would be better - you would not go to the trouble of negotiating a custom trade deal to trade on worse terms than you would if you didn't have one.

The gamble - and its always been a gamble - is that in no longer having to adhere to the rules of the EU, this would allow the UK to broker deals with other countries that would be at more favourable terms than currently and that increased trade with those countries would make up for the inevitable increased cost and loss of trade with the EU.

Deal at your own risk as far as that is concerned but given that the small number of trade deals the UK has signed up to since it left the EU have just been rolling over the terms of the existing EU trade deal with those countries - hence they've been able to be done quickly - it doesn't fill me with a huge amount of optimism that they will be able to do that.

There are of course matters other than trade, so you also have to consider whether the inevitable hit to trade and GDP is a cost worth paying.  I don't, others do.
 

All we've heard from the brexit politicians is that we should not be worried about leaving without a deal.    Why are they saying that?  Don't just say cause they are LYING.  I want to know WHY they are lying.     Stupid thing to lie about if they get found out. 

 

 

[Lairdyfaeinverclyde]

10 minutes ago, davy-hay said:

All we've heard from the brexit politicians is that we should not be worried about leaving without a deal.    Why are they saying that?  Don't just say cause they are LYING.  I want to know WHY they are lying.     Stupid thing to lie about if they get found out. 

 

 

Let's turn this round why do you believe them? I asked you the other day to convince me why brexit will be good for Scotland, still waiting.

[phart]

2 hours ago, Lairdyfaeinverclyde said:

Is this just the start?

 

Armed Navy boats on standby to protect UK waters in case of no-deal Brexit (msn.com)

The Cod wars starting again.

[Lairdyfaeinverclyde]

2 minutes ago, phart said:

The Cod wars starting again.

Exactly what i was thinking. I can remember it clearly.

[davy-hay]

27 minutes ago, Lairdyfaeinverclyde said:

Let's turn this round why do you believe them? I asked you the other day to convince me why brexit will be good for Scotland, still waiting.

More concerned why they put lies out there if they will get found out. 

 

The best lies are the hard to prove ones.   This won't be hard to prove.

Either the food prices will sky rocket or they won't.  

[Caledonian Craig]

22 minutes ago, davy-hay said:

More concerned why they put lies out there if they will get found out. 

 

The best lies are the hard to prove ones.   This won't be hard to prove.

Either the food prices will sky rocket or they won't.  

So pray tell why are bosses at Tesco openly coming out and saying prices will rise in their stores? It certainly isn't a marketing ploy to claim your prices are going up. That alone says prices are going up - accept it. Brexit is a disaster. The US aren't going to ride in with a big trade deal like the clueless Tories were hoping for. Why? Well the US already have their big trading partners - their neighbours in Canada and Mexico. That is the way deals are done but don't tell Boris and co that.

[davy-hay]

53 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

So pray tell why are bosses at Tesco openly coming out and saying prices will rise in their stores? It certainly isn't a marketing ploy to claim your prices are going up. That alone says prices are going up - accept it. Brexit is a disaster. The US aren't going to ride in with a big trade deal like the clueless Tories were hoping for. Why? Well the US already have their big trading partners - their neighbours in Canada and Mexico. That is the way deals are done but don't tell Boris and co that.

So why did a lot of people say prices won't rise or in fact they could be cheaper.  

"cause they lie"  isn't the answer am after

[Caledonian Craig]

Name the people who said prices would not rise.

[davy-hay]

2 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Name the people who said prices would not rise.

Torys and some economists. 

 

Hence smily face by posters 

[Caledonian Craig]

Just now, davy-hay said:

Torys and some economists. 

 

Hence smily face by posters 

The most complete opinion and detailed response came from a former Tory advisor. It has been posted on here twice. The man is an American and was involved with the Bank of England and painted a very gloomy picture. He is probably best positioned to judge and Brexiteers iDIOTs would probably watch with fingers in their ears saying na na na na na na. Truth hurts you see.

[davy-hay]

 

Watch from 6.45.  

Tell me if you agree. 

 

[Caledonian Craig]

8 minutes ago, davy-hay said:

 

Watch from 6.45.  

Tell me if you agree. 

 

I agree fully with the interviewerer. And hmmm Australian Beef hormone-treated. What a moby Brexiteers are.

[vanderark14]

2 hours ago, davy-hay said:

More concerned why they put lies out there if they will get found out. 

 

The best lies are the hard to prove ones.   This won't be hard to prove.

Either the food prices will sky rocket or they won't.  

You cant demand answers from people after avoiding questions yourself.

 

[davy-hay]

53 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

I agree fully with the interviewerer. And hmmm Australian Beef hormone-treated. What a moby Brexiteers are.

The interviewer is the worst in the business.   That doesn't mean the words he used are wrong, but it puts people off if he's so bad at his trade.  It actually made mogg look good.