Strangely enough, from what I can glean, it is reported that the negotiations for these trade deals took between 4 (Korea) & 10 years (China). And, with the month that is in it, it is, perhaps, worth noting that the announcements that car plants in Australia were to close happened very soon after the trade deals were agreed. It may be worth suggesting that the UK economy is a tad more complex than that of Australia, in terms of trade.
Apart from that, I doubt that the UK can be Singapore or Hong Kong, & am very wary of the UK introducing unilateral free trade. To me, it looks very much like that, without reciprocity, the UK, in unilaterally abandoning what protections are allowed, would be effectively supporting competitors to the detriment of UK producers. I'm a bit concerned that the UK position at the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws might have been slightly more favourable than now, so there was more incentive for others to seek bilateral deals (declaring UFT removes almost all interest for third parties to seek bilateral deals, other than on a purely sectoral basis).
Strangely enough, from what I can glean, it is reported that the negotiations for these trade deals took between 4 (Korea) & 10 years (China). And, with the month that is in it, it is, perhaps, worth noting that the announcements that car plants in Australia were to close happened very soon after the trade deals were agreed. It may be worth suggesting that the UK economy is a tad more complex than that of Australia, in terms of trade.
Apart from that, I doubt that the UK can be Singapore or Hong Kong, & am very wary of the UK introducing unilateral free trade. To me, it looks very much like that, without reciprocity, the UK, in unilaterally abandoning what protections are allowed, would be effectively supporting competitors to the detriment of UK producers. I'm a bit concerned that the UK position at the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws might have been slightly more favourable than now, so there was more incentive for others to seek bilateral deals (declaring UFT removes almost all interest for third parties to seek bilateral deals, other than on a purely sectoral basis).
Already responded above regarding the Aussie deals.
Yes, UK will be more complex than Australia but not insuperable.
Rollover of FTAs will require negotiation - that can benefit us too.
I support UFT - I know others will not, that is a matter of choice.
I did have to radically edit to fit my post in, but I do want to say that I enjoyed yours (whilst fundamentally disagreeing with a few of the premises).
And, while I still think that the vote to leave the EU (and support for UFT) is bonkers - I do hope that you are right in your conclusions, for all that I do not expect that you are.
Everything will depend on the UK Government's ability to negotiate well (and we will all have our own opinions on that).
There is a real problem for the UK in that none of what needs to be agreed will be considered in a vacuum, the perception will be that the UK is in greater need of agreeing trade deals, which will encourage others to demand greater concessions.
Strangely enough, from what I can glean, it is reported that the negotiations for these trade deals took between 4 (Korea) & 10 years (China). And, with the month that is in it, it is, perhaps, worth noting that the announcements that car plants in Australia were to close happened very soon after the trade deals were agreed. It may be worth suggesting that the UK economy is a tad more complex than that of Australia, in terms of trade.
Apart from that, I doubt that the UK can be Singapore or Hong Kong, & am very wary of the UK introducing unilateral free trade. To me, it looks very much like that, without reciprocity, the UK, in unilaterally abandoning what protections are allowed, would be effectively supporting competitors to the detriment of UK producers. I'm a bit concerned that the UK position at the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws might have been slightly more favourable than now, so there was more incentive for others to seek bilateral deals (declaring UFT removes almost all interest for third parties to seek bilateral deals, other than on a purely sectoral basis).
Already responded above regarding the Aussie deals.
Yes, UK will be more complex than Australia but not insuperable.
Rollover of FTAs will require negotiation - that can benefit us too.
I support UFT - I know others will not, that is a matter of choice.
I did have to radically edit to fit my post in, but I do want to say that I enjoyed yours (whilst fundamentally disagreeing with a few of the premises).
And, while I still think that the vote to leave the EU (and support for UFT) is bonkers - I do hope that you are right in your conclusions, for all that I do not expect that you are. Everything will depend on the UK Government's ability to negotiate well (and we will all have our own opinions on that).
There is a real problem for the UK in that none of what needs to be agreed will be considered in a vacuum, the perception will be that the UK is in greater need of agreeing trade deals, which will encourage others to demand greater concessions.
And therein lies the biggest problem of all. And, I admit, my biggest concern.
Having said that, and at the risk of repeating myself, I do not believe we will leave in the end ... unfortunately.
There are a lot of assumptions and statements in your post I simply find difficult to believe to be true. I need time to investigate. I hope NornIrishAddick responds beforehand as he is much more knowledgable on these matters than I am.
But going back to my original point am I correct in saying that if a Free Trade area has two members, that is a good thing, but if it has more than two members that is a bad thing? That seems to be what you are saying. If it is what is the logic behind that view?
It's an opinion on how we should move forward - I cannot prove the future, neither can anyone. I believe it will work - only time will tell.
You wanted to understand my justification for my trade views - I have given them.
I do not understand your point about 'more than two members'. I am happy with bilateral and multilateral trade agreements provided they are based on matters of trade only. The numbers involved are irrelevant - I am saying that I do not believe the EU approach works - my arguments have been given. I know you won't agree but that's not a problem.
Perhaps you can tell me why the EU approach to negotiating trade deals is a good one? And explain to me why it takes them so long and why that is good? And why they cannot make trade deals with so many countries in a reasonable time?
Al least I take time to outline my thoughts whether or not you agree. The consensus on here recently has been that anyone who voted exit did it on the basis of being stupid and not understanding anything. I hope, at the least, that it shows I did not base my decision on ignorance.
Just to add, I look forward to your detailed feedback on my apparent "assumptions and statements" that you find difficult to be true.
I have spent a lot of time answering questions - perhaps you can also elucidate further.
Strangely enough, from what I can glean, it is reported that the negotiations for these trade deals took between 4 (Korea) & 10 years (China). And, with the month that is in it, it is, perhaps, worth noting that the announcements that car plants in Australia were to close happened very soon after the trade deals were agreed. It may be worth suggesting that the UK economy is a tad more complex than that of Australia, in terms of trade.
Apart from that, I doubt that the UK can be Singapore or Hong Kong, & am very wary of the UK introducing unilateral free trade. To me, it looks very much like that, without reciprocity, the UK, in unilaterally abandoning what protections are allowed, would be effectively supporting competitors to the detriment of UK producers. I'm a bit concerned that the UK position at the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws might have been slightly more favourable than now, so there was more incentive for others to seek bilateral deals (declaring UFT removes almost all interest for third parties to seek bilateral deals, other than on a purely sectoral basis).
Already responded above regarding the Aussie deals.
Yes, UK will be more complex than Australia but not insuperable.
Rollover of FTAs will require negotiation - that can benefit us too.
I support UFT - I know others will not, that is a matter of choice.
I did have to radically edit to fit my post in, but I do want to say that I enjoyed yours (whilst fundamentally disagreeing with a few of the premises).
And, while I still think that the vote to leave the EU (and support for UFT) is bonkers - I do hope that you are right in your conclusions, for all that I do not expect that you are. Everything will depend on the UK Government's ability to negotiate well (and we will all have our own opinions on that).
There is a real problem for the UK in that none of what needs to be agreed will be considered in a vacuum, the perception will be that the UK is in greater need of agreeing trade deals, which will encourage others to demand greater concessions.
And therein lies the biggest problem of all. And, I admit, my biggest concern.
Having said that, and at the risk of repeating myself, I do not believe we will leave in the end ... unfortunately.
Genuine question because you seem far more knowledgable on this subject than I.
If you have little faith in our leaders abilities to negotiate a decent deal for our country (neither do I BTW) do you still think we're best off out on a poorly negotiated deal than in on the current terms ?
Strangely enough, from what I can glean, it is reported that the negotiations for these trade deals took between 4 (Korea) & 10 years (China). And, with the month that is in it, it is, perhaps, worth noting that the announcements that car plants in Australia were to close happened very soon after the trade deals were agreed. It may be worth suggesting that the UK economy is a tad more complex than that of Australia, in terms of trade.
Apart from that, I doubt that the UK can be Singapore or Hong Kong, & am very wary of the UK introducing unilateral free trade. To me, it looks very much like that, without reciprocity, the UK, in unilaterally abandoning what protections are allowed, would be effectively supporting competitors to the detriment of UK producers. I'm a bit concerned that the UK position at the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws might have been slightly more favourable than now, so there was more incentive for others to seek bilateral deals (declaring UFT removes almost all interest for third parties to seek bilateral deals, other than on a purely sectoral basis).
Already responded above regarding the Aussie deals.
Yes, UK will be more complex than Australia but not insuperable.
Rollover of FTAs will require negotiation - that can benefit us too.
I support UFT - I know others will not, that is a matter of choice.
I did have to radically edit to fit my post in, but I do want to say that I enjoyed yours (whilst fundamentally disagreeing with a few of the premises).
And, while I still think that the vote to leave the EU (and support for UFT) is bonkers - I do hope that you are right in your conclusions, for all that I do not expect that you are. Everything will depend on the UK Government's ability to negotiate well (and we will all have our own opinions on that).
There is a real problem for the UK in that none of what needs to be agreed will be considered in a vacuum, the perception will be that the UK is in greater need of agreeing trade deals, which will encourage others to demand greater concessions.
And therein lies the biggest problem of all. And, I admit, my biggest concern.
Having said that, and at the risk of repeating myself, I do not believe we will leave in the end ... unfortunately.
I was going to say, regardless of any success stories other nations have had, at the end of our day, can our politicians get us a better trade deal that would be better than our current EU membership? If not then better we stay in the EU. "Unfortunately" doesn't really come into it, the EU is generally very good for the UK.
The obvious solution would be simply to join EFTA. But we refuse for no real good reason to go down that road.
Strangely enough, from what I can glean, it is reported that the negotiations for these trade deals took between 4 (Korea) & 10 years (China). And, with the month that is in it, it is, perhaps, worth noting that the announcements that car plants in Australia were to close happened very soon after the trade deals were agreed. It may be worth suggesting that the UK economy is a tad more complex than that of Australia, in terms of trade.
Apart from that, I doubt that the UK can be Singapore or Hong Kong, & am very wary of the UK introducing unilateral free trade. To me, it looks very much like that, without reciprocity, the UK, in unilaterally abandoning what protections are allowed, would be effectively supporting competitors to the detriment of UK producers. I'm a bit concerned that the UK position at the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws might have been slightly more favourable than now, so there was more incentive for others to seek bilateral deals (declaring UFT removes almost all interest for third parties to seek bilateral deals, other than on a purely sectoral basis).
Already responded above regarding the Aussie deals.
Yes, UK will be more complex than Australia but not insuperable.
Rollover of FTAs will require negotiation - that can benefit us too.
I support UFT - I know others will not, that is a matter of choice.
I did have to radically edit to fit my post in, but I do want to say that I enjoyed yours (whilst fundamentally disagreeing with a few of the premises).
And, while I still think that the vote to leave the EU (and support for UFT) is bonkers - I do hope that you are right in your conclusions, for all that I do not expect that you are. Everything will depend on the UK Government's ability to negotiate well (and we will all have our own opinions on that).
There is a real problem for the UK in that none of what needs to be agreed will be considered in a vacuum, the perception will be that the UK is in greater need of agreeing trade deals, which will encourage others to demand greater concessions.
And therein lies the biggest problem of all. And, I admit, my biggest concern.
Having said that, and at the risk of repeating myself, I do not believe we will leave in the end ... unfortunately.
Genuine question because you seem far more knowledgable on this subject than I.
If you have little faith in our leaders abilities to negotiate a decent deal for our country (neither do I BTW) do you still think we're best off out on a poorly negotiated deal than in on the current terms ?
That is a tough one. I definitely believe we are, in the long-term, better off out. However, a poorly negotiated deal is actually worthless and will, without a doubt, provide us with no more - in fact less - than we have now.
If the deal cannot be handled effectively, then there is no point in leaving.
Hopefully, the Swiss quote that I gave in an earlier post will prove prescient.
I do have a concern with our political leadership across the board - but provided they concentrate on the right issues, they can still make it work.
There are a lot of assumptions and statements in your post I simply find difficult to believe to be true. I need time to investigate. I hope NornIrishAddick responds beforehand as he is much more knowledgable on these matters than I am.
But going back to my original point am I correct in saying that if a Free Trade area has two members, that is a good thing, but if it has more than two members that is a bad thing? That seems to be what you are saying. If it is what is the logic behind that view?
It's an opinion on how we should move forward - I cannot prove the future, neither can anyone. I believe it will work - only time will tell.
You wanted to understand my justification for my trade views - I have given them.
I do not understand your point about 'more than two members'. I am happy with bilateral and multilateral trade agreements provided they are based on matters of trade only. The numbers involved are irrelevant - I am saying that I do not believe the EU approach works - my arguments have been given. I know you won't agree but that's not a problem.
Perhaps you can tell me why the EU approach to negotiating trade deals is a good one? And explain to me why it takes them so long and why that is good? And why they cannot make trade deals with so many countries in a reasonable time?
Al least I take time to outline my thoughts whether or not you agree. The consensus on here recently has been that anyone who voted exit did it on the basis of being stupid and not understanding anything. I hope, at the least, that it shows I did not base my decision on ignorance.
Just to add, I look forward to your detailed feedback on my apparent "assumptions and statements" that you find difficult to be true.
I have spent a lot of time answering questions - perhaps you can also elucidate further.
I will. I am waiting for my 10 year old lap top to fire up. My IPad just does not cut it at times like this.
There are a lot of assumptions and statements in your post I simply find difficult to believe to be true. I need time to investigate. I hope NornIrishAddick responds beforehand as he is much more knowledgable on these matters than I am.
But going back to my original point am I correct in saying that if a Free Trade area has two members, that is a good thing, but if it has more than two members that is a bad thing? That seems to be what you are saying. If it is what is the logic behind that view?
It's an opinion on how we should move forward - I cannot prove the future, neither can anyone. I believe it will work - only time will tell.
You wanted to understand my justification for my trade views - I have given them.
I do not understand your point about 'more than two members'. I am happy with bilateral and multilateral trade agreements provided they are based on matters of trade only. The numbers involved are irrelevant - I am saying that I do not believe the EU approach works - my arguments have been given. I know you won't agree but that's not a problem.
Perhaps you can tell me why the EU approach to negotiating trade deals is a good one? And explain to me why it takes them so long and why that is good? And why they cannot make trade deals with so many countries in a reasonable time?
Al least I take time to outline my thoughts whether or not you agree. The consensus on here recently has been that anyone who voted exit did it on the basis of being stupid and not understanding anything. I hope, at the least, that it shows I did not base my decision on ignorance.
Just to add, I look forward to your detailed feedback on my apparent "assumptions and statements" that you find difficult to be true.
I have spent a lot of time answering questions - perhaps you can also elucidate further.
I will. I am waiting for my 10 year old lap top to fire up. My IPad just does not cut it at times like this.
Strangely enough, from what I can glean, it is reported that the negotiations for these trade deals took between 4 (Korea) & 10 years (China). And, with the month that is in it, it is, perhaps, worth noting that the announcements that car plants in Australia were to close happened very soon after the trade deals were agreed. It may be worth suggesting that the UK economy is a tad more complex than that of Australia, in terms of trade.
Apart from that, I doubt that the UK can be Singapore or Hong Kong, & am very wary of the UK introducing unilateral free trade. To me, it looks very much like that, without reciprocity, the UK, in unilaterally abandoning what protections are allowed, would be effectively supporting competitors to the detriment of UK producers. I'm a bit concerned that the UK position at the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws might have been slightly more favourable than now, so there was more incentive for others to seek bilateral deals (declaring UFT removes almost all interest for third parties to seek bilateral deals, other than on a purely sectoral basis).
Already responded above regarding the Aussie deals.
Yes, UK will be more complex than Australia but not insuperable.
Rollover of FTAs will require negotiation - that can benefit us too.
I support UFT - I know others will not, that is a matter of choice.
I did have to radically edit to fit my post in, but I do want to say that I enjoyed yours (whilst fundamentally disagreeing with a few of the premises).
And, while I still think that the vote to leave the EU (and support for UFT) is bonkers - I do hope that you are right in your conclusions, for all that I do not expect that you are. Everything will depend on the UK Government's ability to negotiate well (and we will all have our own opinions on that).
There is a real problem for the UK in that none of what needs to be agreed will be considered in a vacuum, the perception will be that the UK is in greater need of agreeing trade deals, which will encourage others to demand greater concessions.
And therein lies the biggest problem of all. And, I admit, my biggest concern.
Having said that, and at the risk of repeating myself, I do not believe we will leave in the end ... unfortunately.
I was going to say, regardless of any success stories other nations have had, at the end of our day, can our politicians get us a better trade deal that would be better than our current EU membership? If not then better we stay in the EU. "Unfortunately" doesn't really come into it, the EU is generally very good for the UK.
The obvious solution would be simply to join EFTA. But we refuse for no real good reason to go down that road.
EFTA is not the answer for me because it won't work with UFT.
Strangely enough, from what I can glean, it is reported that the negotiations for these trade deals took between 4 (Korea) & 10 years (China). And, with the month that is in it, it is, perhaps, worth noting that the announcements that car plants in Australia were to close happened very soon after the trade deals were agreed. It may be worth suggesting that the UK economy is a tad more complex than that of Australia, in terms of trade.
Apart from that, I doubt that the UK can be Singapore or Hong Kong, & am very wary of the UK introducing unilateral free trade. To me, it looks very much like that, without reciprocity, the UK, in unilaterally abandoning what protections are allowed, would be effectively supporting competitors to the detriment of UK producers. I'm a bit concerned that the UK position at the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws might have been slightly more favourable than now, so there was more incentive for others to seek bilateral deals (declaring UFT removes almost all interest for third parties to seek bilateral deals, other than on a purely sectoral basis).
Already responded above regarding the Aussie deals.
Yes, UK will be more complex than Australia but not insuperable.
Rollover of FTAs will require negotiation - that can benefit us too.
I support UFT - I know others will not, that is a matter of choice.
I did have to radically edit to fit my post in, but I do want to say that I enjoyed yours (whilst fundamentally disagreeing with a few of the premises).
And, while I still think that the vote to leave the EU (and support for UFT) is bonkers - I do hope that you are right in your conclusions, for all that I do not expect that you are. Everything will depend on the UK Government's ability to negotiate well (and we will all have our own opinions on that).
There is a real problem for the UK in that none of what needs to be agreed will be considered in a vacuum, the perception will be that the UK is in greater need of agreeing trade deals, which will encourage others to demand greater concessions.
And therein lies the biggest problem of all. And, I admit, my biggest concern.
Having said that, and at the risk of repeating myself, I do not believe we will leave in the end ... unfortunately.
I was going to say, regardless of any success stories other nations have had, at the end of our day, can our politicians get us a better trade deal that would be better than our current EU membership? If not then better we stay in the EU. "Unfortunately" doesn't really come into it, the EU is generally very good for the UK.
The obvious solution would be simply to join EFTA. But we refuse for no real good reason to go down that road.
EFTA is not the answer for me because it won't work with UFT.
Strangely enough, from what I can glean, it is reported that the negotiations for these trade deals took between 4 (Korea) & 10 years (China). And, with the month that is in it, it is, perhaps, worth noting that the announcements that car plants in Australia were to close happened very soon after the trade deals were agreed. It may be worth suggesting that the UK economy is a tad more complex than that of Australia, in terms of trade.
Apart from that, I doubt that the UK can be Singapore or Hong Kong, & am very wary of the UK introducing unilateral free trade. To me, it looks very much like that, without reciprocity, the UK, in unilaterally abandoning what protections are allowed, would be effectively supporting competitors to the detriment of UK producers. I'm a bit concerned that the UK position at the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws might have been slightly more favourable than now, so there was more incentive for others to seek bilateral deals (declaring UFT removes almost all interest for third parties to seek bilateral deals, other than on a purely sectoral basis).
Already responded above regarding the Aussie deals.
Yes, UK will be more complex than Australia but not insuperable.
Rollover of FTAs will require negotiation - that can benefit us too.
I support UFT - I know others will not, that is a matter of choice.
I did have to radically edit to fit my post in, but I do want to say that I enjoyed yours (whilst fundamentally disagreeing with a few of the premises).
And, while I still think that the vote to leave the EU (and support for UFT) is bonkers - I do hope that you are right in your conclusions, for all that I do not expect that you are. Everything will depend on the UK Government's ability to negotiate well (and we will all have our own opinions on that).
There is a real problem for the UK in that none of what needs to be agreed will be considered in a vacuum, the perception will be that the UK is in greater need of agreeing trade deals, which will encourage others to demand greater concessions.
And therein lies the biggest problem of all. And, I admit, my biggest concern.
Having said that, and at the risk of repeating myself, I do not believe we will leave in the end ... unfortunately.
I was going to say, regardless of any success stories other nations have had, at the end of our day, can our politicians get us a better trade deal that would be better than our current EU membership? If not then better we stay in the EU. "Unfortunately" doesn't really come into it, the EU is generally very good for the UK.
The obvious solution would be simply to join EFTA. But we refuse for no real good reason to go down that road.
EFTA is not the answer for me because it won't work with UFT.
Why not?
Because the other members of EFTA do not support it.
However, I am no expert - perhaps it can work unilaterally for one member - I stand to be corrected.
The trouble is, it's not 5,000 jobs that are going to create any new value for the country; it's 5,000 new jobs that will be necessary to deal with the added bureaucracy of a post-Brexit world.
The trouble is, it's not 5,000 jobs that are going to create any new value for the country; it's 5,000 new jobs that will be necessary to deal with the added bureaucracy of a post-Brexit world.
mmmm better late than never I suppose, should have been a year ago - she can make them redundant when we decide to stay in.
Does being in EFTA stop you from striking free trade deals with other nations?
Well, the EU would not support a UFT deal because they insist on tariffs and non-tariff barriers for non-members.
I do not have enough knowledge about EFTA to know if they have the same approach.
AFAIK EFTA is literally just a free trade area between the non-EU members of the EEA with access to the EEA (I realise it is more nuanced than that but for the purposes of tariffs it might as well be the case).
It appears that EFTA has a lot of positives. A number of FTAs already in place which would give us a head start and the existing FTAs cover countries to which we send approx. 19% of our exports.
It all depends on whether or not we would have to apply any EU regulations by doing so. Also important that existing EFTA FTAs would not be re-negotiated.
A big plus is that EFTA States are not obliged by the EFTA Convention to conclude preferential trade agreements as a group. We would maintain the full right to enter into bilateral third-country arrangements.
I'm sure that @NornIrishAddick knows far more than me about this.
Strangely enough, from what I can glean, it is reported that the negotiations for these trade deals took between 4 (Korea) & 10 years (China). And, with the month that is in it, it is, perhaps, worth noting that the announcements that car plants in Australia were to close happened very soon after the trade deals were agreed. It may be worth suggesting that the UK economy is a tad more complex than that of Australia, in terms of trade.
Apart from that, I doubt that the UK can be Singapore or Hong Kong, & am very wary of the UK introducing unilateral free trade. To me, it looks very much like that, without reciprocity, the UK, in unilaterally abandoning what protections are allowed, would be effectively supporting competitors to the detriment of UK producers. I'm a bit concerned that the UK position at the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws might have been slightly more favourable than now, so there was more incentive for others to seek bilateral deals (declaring UFT removes almost all interest for third parties to seek bilateral deals, other than on a purely sectoral basis).
Already responded above regarding the Aussie deals.
Yes, UK will be more complex than Australia but not insuperable.
Rollover of FTAs will require negotiation - that can benefit us too.
I support UFT - I know others will not, that is a matter of choice.
I did have to radically edit to fit my post in, but I do want to say that I enjoyed yours (whilst fundamentally disagreeing with a few of the premises).
And, while I still think that the vote to leave the EU (and support for UFT) is bonkers - I do hope that you are right in your conclusions, for all that I do not expect that you are. Everything will depend on the UK Government's ability to negotiate well (and we will all have our own opinions on that).
There is a real problem for the UK in that none of what needs to be agreed will be considered in a vacuum, the perception will be that the UK is in greater need of agreeing trade deals, which will encourage others to demand greater concessions.
And therein lies the biggest problem of all. And, I admit, my biggest concern.
Having said that, and at the risk of repeating myself, I do not believe we will leave in the end ... unfortunately.
Genuine question because you seem far more knowledgable on this subject than I.
If you have little faith in our leaders abilities to negotiate a decent deal for our country (neither do I BTW) do you still think we're best off out on a poorly negotiated deal than in on the current terms ?
That is a tough one. I definitely believe we are, in the long-term, better off out. However, a poorly negotiated deal is actually worthless and will, without a doubt, provide us with no more - in fact less - than we have now.
If the deal cannot be handled effectively, then there is no point in leaving.
Hopefully, the Swiss quote that I gave in an earlier post will prove prescient.
I do have a concern with our political leadership across the board - but provided they concentrate on the right issues, they can still make it work.
Is 'the long term' the same as a piece of string?
We will never be 'better off out' unless you accept that what better means differs from person to person and it is not a term that has any meaning.
Indeed the 'we' you refer to might really mean 'some of us' not all of us. There are plenty that would think a 400km mined and electrified fence between Northern Ireland and the EU would be a bit of 'better', and plenty that would say it would be worse.
To be charitable the terms better or worse are used by both sides in this debate continually and the automatic assumption is that we're talking the financials. I get that because money is a huge driver for lots of people. However I repeat ad nauseousness ! that for many of us the financials are a minor issue in the bigger picture.
It looks as if there is 99% agreement by everybody on this thread that the UK negotiators are embarrassingly useless, so we all come together over something.
Strangely enough, from what I can glean, it is reported that the negotiations for these trade deals took between 4 (Korea) & 10 years (China). And, with the month that is in it, it is, perhaps, worth noting that the announcements that car plants in Australia were to close happened very soon after the trade deals were agreed. It may be worth suggesting that the UK economy is a tad more complex than that of Australia, in terms of trade.
Apart from that, I doubt that the UK can be Singapore or Hong Kong, & am very wary of the UK introducing unilateral free trade. To me, it looks very much like that, without reciprocity, the UK, in unilaterally abandoning what protections are allowed, would be effectively supporting competitors to the detriment of UK producers. I'm a bit concerned that the UK position at the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws might have been slightly more favourable than now, so there was more incentive for others to seek bilateral deals (declaring UFT removes almost all interest for third parties to seek bilateral deals, other than on a purely sectoral basis).
Already responded above regarding the Aussie deals.
Yes, UK will be more complex than Australia but not insuperable.
Rollover of FTAs will require negotiation - that can benefit us too.
I support UFT - I know others will not, that is a matter of choice.
I did have to radically edit to fit my post in, but I do want to say that I enjoyed yours (whilst fundamentally disagreeing with a few of the premises).
And, while I still think that the vote to leave the EU (and support for UFT) is bonkers - I do hope that you are right in your conclusions, for all that I do not expect that you are. Everything will depend on the UK Government's ability to negotiate well (and we will all have our own opinions on that).
There is a real problem for the UK in that none of what needs to be agreed will be considered in a vacuum, the perception will be that the UK is in greater need of agreeing trade deals, which will encourage others to demand greater concessions.
And therein lies the biggest problem of all. And, I admit, my biggest concern.
Having said that, and at the risk of repeating myself, I do not believe we will leave in the end ... unfortunately.
Genuine question because you seem far more knowledgable on this subject than I.
If you have little faith in our leaders abilities to negotiate a decent deal for our country (neither do I BTW) do you still think we're best off out on a poorly negotiated deal than in on the current terms ?
That is a tough one. I definitely believe we are, in the long-term, better off out. However, a poorly negotiated deal is actually worthless and will, without a doubt, provide us with no more - in fact less - than we have now.
If the deal cannot be handled effectively, then there is no point in leaving.
Hopefully, the Swiss quote that I gave in an earlier post will prove prescient.
I do have a concern with our political leadership across the board - but provided they concentrate on the right issues, they can still make it work.
Is 'the long term' the same as a piece of string?
We will never be 'better off out' unless you accept that what better means differs from person to person and it is not a term that has any meaning.
Indeed the 'we' you refer to might really mean 'some of us' not all of us. There are plenty that would think a 400km mined and electrified fence between Northern Ireland and the EU would be a bit of 'better', and plenty that would say it would be worse.
To be charitable the terms better or worse are used by both sides in this debate continually and the automatic assumption is that we're talking the financials. I get that because money is a huge driver for lots of people. However I repeat ad nauseousness ! that for many of us the financials are a minor issue in the bigger picture.
It looks as if there is 99% agreement by everybody on this thread that the UK negotiators are embarrassingly useless, so we all come together over something.
I am 99% certain that my personal circumstances will not improve at all once we leave the EU and I consider myself relatively insulated from the worst Brexit has to offer.
It appears that EFTA has a lot of positives. A number of FTAs already in place which would give us a head start and the existing FTAs cover countries to which we send approx. 19% of our exports.
It all depends on whether or not we would have to apply any EU regulations by doing so. Also important that existing EFTA FTAs would not be re-negotiated.
A big plus is that EFTA States are not obliged by the EFTA Convention to conclude preferential trade agreements as a group. We would maintain the full right to enter into bilateral third-country arrangements.
I'm sure that @NornIrishAddick knows far more than me about this.
I wouldn't be so sure, but the EFTA's own website is our friend efta.int/.
Membership of EFTA would be a better thing than nothing, IMHO, but whilst it was an organisation that the UK was intimately involved with before, it may not necessarily be a simple path to join (it may be fine, but there will have to be some negotiation).
It allows the greatest possible flexibility, whilst also providing access to a range of trade agreements; it allows, at some stage in the future, if desired, for closer relations with the EU.
But, that said, for some it will be a step too far.
Strangely enough, from what I can glean, it is reported that the negotiations for these trade deals took between 4 (Korea) & 10 years (China). And, with the month that is in it, it is, perhaps, worth noting that the announcements that car plants in Australia were to close happened very soon after the trade deals were agreed. It may be worth suggesting that the UK economy is a tad more complex than that of Australia, in terms of trade.
Apart from that, I doubt that the UK can be Singapore or Hong Kong, & am very wary of the UK introducing unilateral free trade. To me, it looks very much like that, without reciprocity, the UK, in unilaterally abandoning what protections are allowed, would be effectively supporting competitors to the detriment of UK producers. I'm a bit concerned that the UK position at the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws might have been slightly more favourable than now, so there was more incentive for others to seek bilateral deals (declaring UFT removes almost all interest for third parties to seek bilateral deals, other than on a purely sectoral basis).
Already responded above regarding the Aussie deals.
Yes, UK will be more complex than Australia but not insuperable.
Rollover of FTAs will require negotiation - that can benefit us too.
I support UFT - I know others will not, that is a matter of choice.
I did have to radically edit to fit my post in, but I do want to say that I enjoyed yours (whilst fundamentally disagreeing with a few of the premises).
And, while I still think that the vote to leave the EU (and support for UFT) is bonkers - I do hope that you are right in your conclusions, for all that I do not expect that you are. Everything will depend on the UK Government's ability to negotiate well (and we will all have our own opinions on that).
There is a real problem for the UK in that none of what needs to be agreed will be considered in a vacuum, the perception will be that the UK is in greater need of agreeing trade deals, which will encourage others to demand greater concessions.
And therein lies the biggest problem of all. And, I admit, my biggest concern.
Having said that, and at the risk of repeating myself, I do not believe we will leave in the end ... unfortunately.
Genuine question because you seem far more knowledgable on this subject than I.
If you have little faith in our leaders abilities to negotiate a decent deal for our country (neither do I BTW) do you still think we're best off out on a poorly negotiated deal than in on the current terms ?
That is a tough one. I definitely believe we are, in the long-term, better off out. However, a poorly negotiated deal is actually worthless and will, without a doubt, provide us with no more - in fact less - than we have now.
If the deal cannot be handled effectively, then there is no point in leaving.
Hopefully, the Swiss quote that I gave in an earlier post will prove prescient.
I do have a concern with our political leadership across the board - but provided they concentrate on the right issues, they can still make it work.
Is 'the long term' the same as a piece of string?
We will never be 'better off out' unless you accept that what better means differs from person to person and it is not a term that has any meaning.
Indeed the 'we' you refer to might really mean 'some of us' not all of us. There are plenty that would think a 400km mined and electrified fence between Northern Ireland and the EU would be a bit of 'better', and plenty that would say it would be worse.
To be charitable the terms better or worse are used by both sides in this debate continually and the automatic assumption is that we're talking the financials. I get that because money is a huge driver for lots of people. However I repeat ad nauseousness ! that for many of us the financials are a minor issue in the bigger picture.
It looks as if there is 99% agreement by everybody on this thread that the UK negotiators are embarrassingly useless, so we all come together over something.
Comments
Yes, UK will be more complex than Australia but not insuperable.
Rollover of FTAs will require negotiation - that can benefit us too.
I support UFT - I know others will not, that is a matter of choice.
My point about Singapore is that I'd like you to explain why you think the UK can have a comparable relationship to the world.
And, while I still think that the vote to leave the EU (and support for UFT) is bonkers - I do hope that you are right in your conclusions, for all that I do not expect that you are.
Everything will depend on the UK Government's ability to negotiate well (and we will all have our own opinions on that).
There is a real problem for the UK in that none of what needs to be agreed will be considered in a vacuum, the perception will be that the UK is in greater need of agreeing trade deals, which will encourage others to demand greater concessions.
Having said that, and at the risk of repeating myself, I do not believe we will leave in the end ... unfortunately.
I have spent a lot of time answering questions - perhaps you can also elucidate further.
If you have little faith in our leaders abilities to negotiate a decent deal for our country (neither do I BTW) do you still think we're best off out on a poorly negotiated deal than in on the current terms ?
The obvious solution would be simply to join EFTA. But we refuse for no real good reason to go down that road.
If the deal cannot be handled effectively, then there is no point in leaving.
Hopefully, the Swiss quote that I gave in an earlier post will prove prescient.
I do have a concern with our political leadership across the board - but provided they concentrate on the right issues, they can still make it work.
However, I am no expert - perhaps it can work unilaterally for one member - I stand to be corrected.
I do not have enough knowledge about EFTA to know if they have the same approach.
The trouble is, it's not 5,000 jobs that are going to create any new value for the country; it's 5,000 new jobs that will be necessary to deal with the added bureaucracy of a post-Brexit world.
It all depends on whether or not we would have to apply any EU regulations by doing so. Also important that existing EFTA FTAs would not be re-negotiated.
A big plus is that EFTA States are not obliged by the EFTA Convention to conclude preferential trade agreements as a group. We would maintain the full right to enter into bilateral third-country arrangements.
I'm sure that @NornIrishAddick knows far more than me about this.
https://statista.com/chart/11574/who-feels-eu-membership-has-paid-off/
https://libf.ac.uk/news-and-insights/insights/detail/2017/10/25/brexit-the-city-and-the-eu-no-sudden-break#utm_source=LinkedIn&utm_medium=Blog&utm_campaign=Brexitandthecity
We will never be 'better off out' unless you accept that what better means differs from person to person and it is not a term that has any meaning.
Indeed the 'we' you refer to might really mean 'some of us' not all of us.
There are plenty that would think a 400km mined and electrified fence between Northern Ireland and the EU would be a bit of 'better', and plenty that would say it would be worse.
To be charitable the terms better or worse are used by both sides in this debate continually and the automatic assumption is that we're talking the financials. I get that because money is a huge driver for lots of people. However I repeat ad nauseousness ! that for many of us the financials are a minor issue in the bigger picture.
It looks as if there is 99% agreement by everybody on this thread that the UK negotiators are embarrassingly useless, so we all come together over something.
Membership of EFTA would be a better thing than nothing, IMHO, but whilst it was an organisation that the UK was intimately involved with before, it may not necessarily be a simple path to join (it may be fine, but there will have to be some negotiation).
It allows the greatest possible flexibility, whilst also providing access to a range of trade agreements; it allows, at some stage in the future, if desired, for closer relations with the EU.
But, that said, for some it will be a step too far.