This talk of elites and power is simply a continuation of the disruptive "anti-establishment" agenda promoted by the backers of Brexit and Trump. End of!
"I think people are fed up of experts" Gove "I love the less well educated" Trump
Some are waking up to who has funded this and we can be sure there's a lot more as yet undiscovered.
I think the link which people on both sides of this discussion are missing is this: Henry VIII powers to repeal EU regs without oversight + 4th IR + big business global outlook = a powerful case to back and fund Brexit.
What does this mean?
Quite simply any major player in any sector Eg driverless cars / Uber will be able to put together an innovative package to accelerate the UK to the front of global innovation by developing a service / product whilst lobbying Westminster (not Brussels) to fast track the neccesary licensing and regulation to make such innovation possible. Sounds exciting but this basically hands regulatory control to a very narrow elite.
The uber wealthy and those with nothing to lose have formed a coalition in an attempt to make this happen - same in the US - same in Catalonia!
"Take back control" is what it has always been about - but not for the voters who supported leave! One doesn't have to well versed in futurology to understand that there are massive changes just around the corner in road travel, health, AI, robotics etc. The EU has been pilloried as undemocratic and full of regulations but this might well be because global players have a challenge to convince the Brussels people to accommodate changes? Anybody watching the centre left Saddiq Khan toying with Uber can see what I am trying to communicate here.
What is unfortunate is the lies peddled around concerning the collapse of the Euro, the Italian economy and the imminent invasion of Britain by 500 million European citizens plus of cours 90 million Turks who were "about to join the EU". And the naked xenophobia which is now leading to EU citizens leaving the UK.
The irony is that the Eurozone economy is flourishing whilst Italy has just had its credit rating raised. For Italy has dealt with the worst of the banking difficulties - clearing up some 25% of the non performing loan issues this year - that would be around €75Bn which has been recovered, sold, converted to performing or placed in an Italian "bad bank scenario". It would appear that a decent Q4 in Italy might deliver higher growth than the UK for 2017?
There is a much wider debate that goes beyond this thread and Brexit - basically who is the innovation for, who will reap the benefits and will the major European economies (including the UK receive there share of taxes on profits generated.
Not for me to say whether this is right or wrong but the banter about the definition of elites is somewhat missing the point. Just as people talking of subverting democracy to force Brexit through. The people funding Brexit - including a Saudi donor paying money to Scotland which landed with the DUP to then spend on full cover adds on the London metro - did so for a reason.
It is up to the people and Parliament to now decide what type of Brexit they wish to see, always subject to the appetite of the EU27 and the constraints of what is possible with the Irish border. And people may want to consider whether they want the EU27 to regulate matters or leave it to the current government in Westminster. And all that as the latest scandal about sexual harrasment breaks while the talks to rekindle the assembly at Stormont are completely stalled.
As posted before, for me it matters not whether we remain in the EU. However remaining in the CU/SM/EEA for a few years appears to be the most sensible option and has the benefit of sidelining the hard Brexit mob. It's not just the fabrications that should bother us but the fact that they are entirely happy to cohabit with the far right elements which the rest of Europe are boycotting. And that perhaps is how the EU might influence the UK?
Exactly. I have been called a Metropolitan Elite to my face several times over the last 18 months. I am not offended by it and it is certainly not a slur. It is a meme/term now used by powerful anti progressive movements in their media outlets to appeal to their base in the US (Trump) and Western Europe (Brexit, anti EU).
It is no more a slur than 'snowflake', 'pc', 'swivel eyed looney'. It just another political pejorative term that packs a lot more weight than the words that make up the term.
I’ve never been called a member of the Metropolitan Elite and would welcome the chance.
The first requirement of being called a Metropolitan Elite is that you never accuse anyone else of being a Metropolitan Elite.
Fiiish ........we are on the same side of the debate on the Brexit debate but I have to say although you continue to make the anti Brexit case eloquently and vigorously, when replying to Dippenhall you now completely undermine your good arguments with gratuitous personal abuse towards him in every post. If you just stick to the rebuttal of the points he makes I am sure he would stop replying in kind with personal abuse towards you.
Fair enough. I think Dippy has been well and truly exposed now. He can go on thinking he is smart and everyone else is thick if he wants.
This must confuse people who rely on the Guardian to confirm the expert view that Brexit can only be a disaster for the UK.
"That is the conclusion of a government commissioned review on industrial digitalisation, published today and led by industry chief Jürgen Maier, the UK and Ireland boss of German engineering giant Siemens."
We have just signed a multi million pound contract with siemens to supply and support our building service systems for the next 20 years. No news like bad news. Went to their HQ In Manchester last month. They are investing billions into the UK over the same period.
This must confuse people who rely on the Guardian to confirm the expert view that Brexit can only be a disaster for the UK.
IR4 is a real game changer moving forward and the UK is at the forefront in Europe and in a strong position globally.
Digitalisation, AI, IoT, Blockchain, etc will transform the world of trade and many other aspects of our lives.
Are you trying to claim that this revolution would not happen if we stayed in the EU? Somehow the EU would prevent the UK from fully benefiting from this revolution if the UK remained a member?
You lot could cause an argument in a nunnery!
No I didn’t claim that at all. READ MY POST AGAIN.
It says nothing about Brexit. I am commenting on IR4 because a link had been posted about the subject.
Sometimes people on here try too hard to object to my posts.
Well said. Some here would find someone to argue with in an empty room.
Anyway, taking further @A-R-T-H-U-R recent post touching on where all the funding money has come from, anyone who is serious about protecting the UK's democratic integrity should play close attention to Carole Cadwalladr. She is a Guardian reporter - n.b. NOT a columnist such as Toynbee or Jones - and she has a real head of steam up on this. This article is 8 months old but still a reference point and she has been plugging away ever since despite various legal threats. Well worth following on Twitter where she is taking it to the men in the shadows as well as Farage and Assange. Highly entertaining as well as revealing.
I am sure she is savvy enough not to go for a cup of tea with a couple of geezers from Moscow, but the more people follow her the less chance there is that she might come to harm. And yes, I seriously believe that might happen.
Anyway, taking further @A-R-T-H-U-R recent post touching on where all the funding money has come from, anyone who is serious about protecting the UK's democratic integrity should play close attention to Carole Cadwalladr. She is a Guardian reporter - n.b. NOT a columnist such as Toynbee or Jones - and she has a real head of steam up on this. This article is 8 months old but still a reference point and she has been plugging away ever since despite various legal threats. Well worth following on Twitter where she is taking it to the men in the shadows as well as Farage and Assange. Highly entertaining as well as revealing.
I am sure she is savvy enough not to go for a cup of tea with a couple of geezers from Moscow, but the more people follow her the less chance there is that she might come to harm. And yes, I seriously believe that might happen.
Anyway, taking further @A-R-T-H-U-R recent post touching on where all the funding money has come from, anyone who is serious about protecting the UK's democratic integrity should play close attention to Carole Cadwalladr. She is a Guardian reporter - n.b. NOT a columnist such as Toynbee or Jones - and she has a real head of steam up on this. This article is 8 months old but still a reference point and she has been plugging away ever since despite various legal threats. Well worth following on Twitter where she is taking it to the men in the shadows as well as Farage and Assange. Highly entertaining as well as revealing.
I am sure she is savvy enough not to go for a cup of tea with a couple of geezers from Moscow, but the more people follow her the less chance there is that she might come to harm. And yes, I seriously believe that might happen.
I watched Bill Maher yesterday. He talked about Steve Bannon having a billion dollars available to ensure only extreme right wing republicans get selected to run for congress over the coming years. I keep reading stories of how Bannon and Breibart tried to influence the Brexit Referendum. The dark money behind Trump and Brexit represents a grave threat to democracy here and in the US. It is getting deadly serious.
It's outrageous that the pinkos at the BBC should seek to stir up trouble with their constant harping and whining. What these metropolitan elitist agitators don't realise is that Brexit was never about jobs, so why bring that up now? If the BBC wants to keep it's charter, it needs to exercise more balance and start publishing some good news, like that fact that Brexit paves the was to getting proper British blue passports. Possibly. That is surely more important than a mere 75,000 jobs. And anyway just think of all that extra seasonal work that will be open to Brits again once the Poles find that they no longer have the right to monopolise the Lincolnshire potato picking concession. That will easily offset the loss of a few cushy numbers for the Champaign Charlies in the city.
It's outrageous that the pinkos at the BBC should seek to stir up trouble with their constant harping and whining. What these metropolitan elitist agitators don't realise is that Brexit was never about jobs, so why bring that up now? If the BBC wants to keep it's charter, it needs to exercise more balance and start publishing some good news, like that fact that Brexit paves the was to getting proper British blue passports. Possibly. That is surely more important than a mere 75,000 jobs. And anyway just think of all that extra seasonal work that will be open to Brits again once the Poles find that they no longer have the right to monopolise the Lincolnshire potato picking concession. That will easily offset the loss of a few cushy numbers for the Champaign Charlies in the city.
There was a discussion about this on nick ferrari show this morning, and the banking 'expert' who is on every day, totally dismissed these figures. Banks shed thousands of jobs every year and have done since the year dot. Can't recall ever reading it here before or anyone who was bothered before.
There was a discussion about this on nick ferrari show this morning, and the banking 'expert' who is on every day, totally dismissed these figures. Banks shed thousands of jobs every year and have done since the year dot. Can't recall ever reading it here before or anyone who was bothered before.
Its cold outside..... Blame brexit.
Banks, like all businesses, shed or add workers according to need, as part of normal business, I agree.
However, it is relatively unusual to have banking roles across the industry transfer out of one finanacial marketplace into another; it might even be said to be unique...
PS It's pissing in Belfast, as well as cold. Taking your advice into account, Brexit must be an even bigger fcuk up than I had thought. :-)
There was a discussion about this on nick ferrari show this morning, and the banking 'expert' who is on every day, totally dismissed these figures. Banks shed thousands of jobs every year and have done since the year dot. Can't recall ever reading it here before or anyone who was bothered before.
There was a discussion about this on nick ferrari show this morning, and the banking 'expert' who is on every day, totally dismissed these figures. Banks shed thousands of jobs every year and have done since the year dot. Can't recall ever reading it here before or anyone who was bothered before.
There was a discussion about this on nick ferrari show this morning, and the banking 'expert' who is on every day, totally dismissed these figures. Banks shed thousands of jobs every year and have done since the year dot. Can't recall ever reading it here before or anyone who was bothered before.
Its cold outside..... Blame brexit.
Banks, like all businesses, shed or add workers according to need, as part of normal business, I agree.
However, it is relatively unusual to have banking roles across the industry transfer out of one finanacial marketplace into another; it might even be said to be unique...
PS It's pissing in Belfast, as well as cold. Taking your advice into account, Brexit must be an even bigger fcuk up than I had thought. :-)
Well i prefer to listen to the experts that suit my agenda as you do... And he works in the sector and dismissed them. I doubt most punters on here know the first thing about the banking business, yet are forever posting tripe about it.
It doesn't matter whether brexit is totally successful or not, some of you will always find negatives, irs become tedious.
Further to this, my wife works in the financial sector and has diversified several times for the same bank. So it's not unusual at all. Theres hardly a week goes by without her talking about redundancies in the industry. And that's been going on for years. Banks will always put profit before people.
There was a discussion about this on nick ferrari show this morning, and the banking 'expert' who is on every day, totally dismissed these figures. Banks shed thousands of jobs every year and have done since the year dot. Can't recall ever reading it here before or anyone who was bothered before.
Its cold outside..... Blame brexit.
Do you mean Nick Ferrari that well known pinko liberal who sits just to the right of Ghengis Khan ? Shock horror that he comes up with someone on his show to cast doubt onto the figures.
@stonemuse .....In your reply to Prague a couple of pages back you you stated you believe in Free Trade. Yet you support the UK leaving the largest Free Trade area ever created. Is this not a contradiction?
You also stated you are opposed to governments interfering in trade between countries and you are concerned about tariffs harming economic growth of developing countries.
A simple google search will allow anyone to see the massive amount of monetary aid that the EU provides to developing countries. It amounts to more than 50% of the total aid given to these countries.
Another simple google search will allow anyone to see the evidence of the many EU fair trade policies that ensure many developing countries get fair and sustainable prices for their produce. Are you opposed to these fair trade policies? Even though they are examples of governments interfering in the price of goods traded between countries?
It’s a free trade area for members.
Will revert in more detail when I get a chance later in the week.
Already spent far too long on this on Saturday when I should have been working .... coincidentally on a trade seminar presentation.
Not got too much time but promised a further response. Doing this in between a couple of trade projects that I am working on, so may be a little disjointed.
The Single Market can be defined as the geographic area within which EU regulation creates ease of doing business for members and around which the EU creates a protective trade barrier. In essence this means that, currently, we trade on an equal footing with all other members. Under the Customs Union, members may not impose tariffs or non-tariff barriers on imports from other EU members. However, all members do impose a centrally agreed tariff rate on imports from the rest of the world (Common External Tariff - CET). It should be noted that this does not mean that there is a common tariff rate – there are a myriad of tariffs that can be incredibly confusing. For instance, seven different tariffs apply to coffee. The tariff structure continually changes and it is incredibly difficult to find out why changes occur in numerous cases. At times, it seems that a change happens just because one industry has a louder lobbyist. It is never clear how the interest of the consumer is taken into account.
In the event that we leave the EU, the CET would be imposed upon the UK – as far as I can ascertain, the average tariff on manufactured goods is about 4% - this is what we might face. It is higher for some industries such as 10% for automobiles.
Non-tariff barriers are more of a hassle and form a key part of the EU’s trade barrier against non-EU members. My hope is that if we leave, we decide to put in place a unilateral free trade policy (UFT), i.e. a tariff-free policy. UFT has a long historical background and can be seen, as I mentioned in my previous post, all the way back to the repeal of the Corn Laws. Sir Robert Peel commented: “Let, therefore, our commerce be as free as our institutions. Let us proclaim commerce free, and nation after nation will follow our example”. After the repeal of the Corn Laws, many bilateral trade treaties were established with the UK. Could this happen again? I certainly believe so.
UFT is in existence in both Hong Kong and Singapore. I lived and worked in Singapore for a long time and still travel there for work on a regular basis. Although Singapore imposes tariffs on goods such as alcohol and cars (both very expensive over there), according to the WTO the average tariff on imports of manufactured goods is zero. Doesn’t seem to have done them much harm implementing UTF.
Much comment has been made on the various Brexit threads about the ‘strength’ of remaining in the EU to negotiate Free Trade Agreements. I have continually stated that I do not accept this, so let’s look at a few facts. As we know, all 28 countries have to agree a FTA – which led to the ridiculous situation last year when the Canada deal was help up by Wallonia. In fact, I do not see how the EU’s track record in establishing FTA’s can be seen as anything other than very weak. Yes, there are a large number of FTA’s in place, but many are with former colonies of EU members and did not need too much effort. Furthermore, the EU still has no FTA’s with the US, China, Japan, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico and Indonesia, amongst others. It is also interesting to note that the EU has relatively few FTA’s with Commonwealth countries; one would hope that this would not be a big problem for us. And it is worth highlighting that the Commonwealth is not small. According to the book ‘Old Links and New Ties’, it stretches across 54 independent nations, embracing 16 realms and 38 republics or other monarchies and somewhere above 2 billion people, just about a third of the human race – and, on paper at least, an economic area with 20% of the world’s trade and growth prospects. That is very attractive growth potential for the UK. It certainly does no harm that many of these nations use the English language and have legal strictures based on English common law.
So how has the supposed negotiating expertise of the EU actually benefited the UK in existing FTAs? Existing FTAs only cover 14% of our goods exports and 9% of our services exports. For services, more than 80% of the value of the markets covered are accounted for by exports to Norway and Switzerland. I have no doubt that we can, at the absolute minimum, match this.
One more point: some of the FTAs established by the EU are known as ‘mixed-competence’ agreements. This means that, using the EU/Korean FTA as an example, all that is needed for the UK to continue post-Brexit would be a statement by the UK that it intended to continue to operate the terms of the FTA with Korea, and a corresponding statement by Korea agreeing the same. Doesn’t sound too tough to me. Even when we look at the FTAs that are not ‘mixed-competence’, how difficult would it be to simply agree to carry on with a deal that existed beforehand?
And why should we have to take many years to establish a FTA as is the case with the EU. Look at Australia – they placed a deadline on trade negotiations with Korea, China and Japan – as a result it took six months to sign a deal with Korea, eight months with Japan, and 13 months with China. Do you really believe that we could not do this as well as Australia? Bottom line, as long as we restrict negotiations to matters of trade only, signing trade deals should not be that difficult or lengthy. The EU takes so long because it has no choice but to get bogged down with innumerable local regulations, standards, and legal disputes. 27 years to negotiate a trade agreement with the US and it still probably won’t happen!
Ueli Maurer, the Swiss Finance Minister, was quoted in the FT in March this year: “The UK has lots of advantages and if they are used cleverly to decouple from the EU, as well as the new freedom in a good bilateral relationship, the UK could develop very positively – I’m convinced of that.”
Ridiculously impressive post @stonemuse, far to much authority and far too many assumptions relying on common senses not backed up by any experts acceptable to Remain voters.
Brexit will be a disaster, the facts prove it will be, how many times do you have to be told before you understand?
Ridiculously impressive post @stonemuse, far to much authority and far too many assumptions relying on common senses not backed up by any experts acceptable to Remain voters.
Brexit will be a disaster, the facts prove it will be, how many times do you have to be told before you understand?
@stonemuse .....In your reply to Prague a couple of pages back you you stated you believe in Free Trade. Yet you support the UK leaving the largest Free Trade area ever created. Is this not a contradiction?
You also stated you are opposed to governments interfering in trade between countries and you are concerned about tariffs harming economic growth of developing countries.
A simple google search will allow anyone to see the massive amount of monetary aid that the EU provides to developing countries. It amounts to more than 50% of the total aid given to these countries.
Another simple google search will allow anyone to see the evidence of the many EU fair trade policies that ensure many developing countries get fair and sustainable prices for their produce. Are you opposed to these fair trade policies? Even though they are examples of governments interfering in the price of goods traded between countries?
It’s a free trade area for members.
Will revert in more detail when I get a chance later in the week.
Already spent far too long on this on Saturday when I should have been working .... coincidentally on a trade seminar presentation.
Not got too much time but promised a further response. Doing this in between a couple of trade projects that I am working on, so may be a little disjointed.
The Single Market can be defined as the geographic area within which EU regulation creates ease of doing business for members and around which the EU creates a protective trade barrier. In essence this means that, currently, we trade on an equal footing with all other members. Under the Customs Union, members may not impose tariffs or non-tariff barriers on imports from other EU members. However, all members do impose a centrally agreed tariff rate on imports from the rest of the world (Common External Tariff - CET). It should be noted that this does not mean that there is a common tariff rate – there are a myriad of tariffs that can be incredibly confusing. For instance, seven different tariffs apply to coffee. The tariff structure continually changes and it is incredibly difficult to find out why changes occur in numerous cases. At times, it seems that a change happens just because one industry has a louder lobbyist. It is never clear how the interest of the consumer is taken into account.
In the event that we leave the EU, the CET would be imposed upon the UK – as far as I can ascertain, the average tariff on manufactured goods is about 4% - this is what we might face. It is higher for some industries such as 10% for automobiles.
Non-tariff barriers are more of a hassle and form a key part of the EU’s trade barrier against non-EU members. My hope is that if we leave, we decide to put in place a unilateral free trade policy (UFT), i.e. a tariff-free policy. UFT has a long historical background and can be seen, as I mentioned in my previous post, all the way back to the repeal of the Corn Laws. Sir Robert Peel commented: “Let, therefore, our commerce be as free as our institutions. Let us proclaim commerce free, and nation after nation will follow our example”. After the repeal of the Corn Laws, many bilateral trade treaties were established with the UK. Could this happen again? I certainly believe so.
UFT is in existence in both Hong Kong and Singapore. I lived and worked in Singapore for a long time and still travel there for work on a regular basis. Although Singapore imposes tariffs on goods such as alcohol and cars (both very expensive over there), according to the WTO the average tariff on imports of manufactured goods is zero. Doesn’t seem to have done them much harm implementing UTF.
Much comment has been made on the various Brexit threads about the ‘strength’ of remaining in the EU to negotiate Free Trade Agreements. I have continually stated that I do not accept this, so let’s look at a few facts. As we know, all 28 countries have to agree a FTA – which led to the ridiculous situation last year when the Canada deal was help up by Wallonia. In fact, I do not see how the EU’s track record in establishing FTA’s can be seen as anything other than very weak. Yes, there are a large number of FTA’s in place, but many are with former colonies of EU members and did not need too much effort. Furthermore, the EU still has no FTA’s with the US, China, Japan, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico and Indonesia, amongst others. It is also interesting to note that the EU has relatively few FTA’s with Commonwealth countries; one would hope that this would not be a big problem for us. And it is worth highlighting that the Commonwealth is not small. According to the book ‘Old Links and New Ties’, it stretches across 54 independent nations, embracing 16 realms and 38 republics or other monarchies and somewhere above 2 billion people, just about a third of the human race – and, on paper at least, an economic area with 20% of the world’s trade and growth prospects. That is very attractive growth potential for the UK. It certainly does no harm that many of these nations use the English language and have legal strictures based on English common law.
So how has the supposed negotiating expertise of the EU actually benefited the UK in existing FTAs? Existing FTAs only cover 14% of our goods exports and 9% of our services exports. For services, more than 80% of the value of the markets covered are accounted for by exports to Norway and Switzerland. I have no doubt that we can, at the absolute minimum, match this.
One more point: some of the FTAs established by the EU are known as ‘mixed-competence’ agreements. This means that, using the EU/Korean FTA as an example, all that is needed for the UK to continue post-Brexit would be a statement by the UK that it intended to continue to operate the terms of the FTA with Korea, and a corresponding statement by Korea agreeing the same. Doesn’t sound too tough to me. Even when we look at the FTAs that are not ‘mixed-competence’, how difficult would it be to simply agree to carry on with a deal that existed beforehand?
And why should we have to take many years to establish a FTA as is the case with the EU. Look at Australia – they placed a deadline on trade negotiations with Korea, China and Japan – as a result it took six months to sign a deal with Korea, eight months with Japan, and 13 months with China. Do you really believe that we could not do this as well as Australia? Bottom line, as long as we restrict negotiations to matters of trade only, signing trade deals should not be that difficult or lengthy. The EU takes so long because it has no choice but to get bogged down with innumerable local regulations, standards, and legal disputes. 27 years to negotiate a trade agreement with the US and it still probably won’t happen!
Ueli Maurer, the Swiss Finance Minister, was quoted in the FT in March this year: “The UK has lots of advantages and if they are used cleverly to decouple from the EU, as well as the new freedom in a good bilateral relationship, the UK could develop very positively – I’m convinced of that.”
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?
I've put that post to some others. Apparently there are a few inaccuracies. China/Aus deal took ten years, not 13 months, and Walloons held up Canada deal a whole two weeks (gosh crikey! Two weeks!) - more to come as we get it
Oh and I'll also step in and flatly stare down the whole Singapore/HK city-state comparison. Mate.
Not got too much time but promised a further response. Doing this in between a couple of trade projects that I am working on, so may be a little disjointed.
The Single Market can be defined as the geographic area within which EU regulation creates ease of doing business for members and around which the EU creates a protective trade barrier. In essence this means that, currently, we trade on an equal footing with all other members. Under the Customs Union, members may not impose tariffs or non-tariff barriers on imports from other EU members. However, all members do impose a centrally agreed tariff rate on imports from the rest of the world (Common External Tariff - CET). It should be noted that this does not mean that there is a common tariff rate – there are a myriad of tariffs that can be incredibly confusing. For instance, seven different tariffs apply to coffee. The tariff structure continually changes and it is incredibly difficult to find out why changes occur in numerous cases. At times, it seems that a change happens just because one industry has a louder lobbyist. It is never clear how the interest of the consumer is taken into account.
In the event that we leave the EU, the CET would be imposed upon the UK – as far as I can ascertain, the average tariff on manufactured goods is about 4% - this is what we might face. It is higher for some industries such as 10% for automobiles.
Non-tariff barriers are more of a hassle and form a key part of the EU’s trade barrier against non-EU members. My hope is that if we leave, we decide to put in place a unilateral free trade policy (UFT), i.e. a tariff-free policy. UFT has a long historical background and can be seen, as I mentioned in my previous post, all the way back to the repeal of the Corn Laws. Sir Robert Peel commented: “Let, therefore, our commerce be as free as our institutions. Let us proclaim commerce free, and nation after nation will follow our example”. After the repeal of the Corn Laws, many bilateral trade treaties were established with the UK. Could this happen again? I certainly believe so.
UFT is in existence in both Hong Kong and Singapore. I lived and worked in Singapore for a long time and still travel there for work on a regular basis. Although Singapore imposes tariffs on goods such as alcohol and cars (both very expensive over there), according to the WTO the average tariff on imports of manufactured goods is zero. Doesn’t seem to have done them much harm implementing UTF.
Much comment has been made on the various Brexit threads about the ‘strength’ of remaining in the EU to negotiate Free Trade Agreements. I have continually stated that I do not accept this, so let’s look at a few facts. As we know, all 28 countries have to agree a FTA – which led to the ridiculous situation last year when the Canada deal was help up by Wallonia. In fact, I do not see how the EU’s track record in establishing FTA’s can be seen as anything other than very weak. Yes, there are a large number of FTA’s in place, but many are with former colonies of EU members and did not need too much effort. Furthermore, the EU still has no FTA’s with the US, China, Japan, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico and Indonesia, amongst others. It is also interesting to note that the EU has relatively few FTA’s with Commonwealth countries; one would hope that this would not be a big problem for us. And it is worth highlighting that the Commonwealth is not small. According to the book ‘Old Links and New Ties’, it stretches across 54 independent nations, embracing 16 realms and 38 republics or other monarchies and somewhere above 2 billion people, just about a third of the human race – and, on paper at least, an economic area with 20% of the world’s trade and growth prospects. That is very attractive growth potential for the UK. It certainly does no harm that many of these nations use the English language and have legal strictures based on English common law.
So how has the supposed negotiating expertise of the EU actually benefited the UK in existing FTAs? Existing FTAs only cover 14% of our goods exports and 9% of our services exports. For services, more than 80% of the value of the markets covered are accounted for by exports to Norway and Switzerland. I have no doubt that we can, at the absolute minimum, match this.
One more point: some of the FTAs established by the EU are known as ‘mixed-competence’ agreements. This means that, using the EU/Korean FTA as an example, all that is needed for the UK to continue post-Brexit would be a statement by the UK that it intended to continue to operate the terms of the FTA with Korea, and a corresponding statement by Korea agreeing the same. Doesn’t sound too tough to me. Even when we look at the FTAs that are not ‘mixed-competence’, how difficult would it be to simply agree to carry on with a deal that existed beforehand?
And why should we have to take many years to establish a FTA as is the case with the EU. Look at Australia – they placed a deadline on trade negotiations with Korea, China and Japan – as a result it took six months to sign a deal with Korea, eight months with Japan, and 13 months with China. Do you really believe that we could not do this as well as Australia? Bottom line, as long as we restrict negotiations to matters of trade only, signing trade deals should not be that difficult or lengthy. The EU takes so long because it has no choice but to get bogged down with innumerable local regulations, standards, and legal disputes. 27 years to negotiate a trade agreement with the US and it still probably won’t happen!
Ueli Maurer, the Swiss Finance Minister, was quoted in the FT in March this year: “The UK has lots of advantages and if they are used cleverly to decouple from the EU, as well as the new freedom in a good bilateral relationship, the UK could develop very positively – I’m convinced of that.”
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.
The Single Market can be defined as the geographic area within which EU regulation creates ease of doing business for members and around which the EU creates a protective trade barrier. In essence this means that, currently, we trade on an equal footing with all other members. Under the Customs Union, members may not impose tariffs or non-tariff barriers on imports from other EU members. However, all members do impose a centrally agreed tariff rate on imports from the rest of the world (Common External Tariff - CET). It should be noted that this does not mean that there is a common tariff rate – there are a myriad of tariffs that can be incredibly confusing. For instance, seven different tariffs apply to coffee. The tariff structure continually changes and it is incredibly difficult to find out why changes occur in numerous cases. At times, it seems that a change happens just because one industry has a louder lobbyist. It is never clear how the interest of the consumer is taken into account.
In the event that we leave the EU, the CET would be imposed upon the UK – the average tariff on manufactured goods is about 4% - this is what we might face. It is higher for some industries such as 10% for automobiles.
Non-tariff barriers are more of a hassle and form a key part of the EU’s trade barrier against non-EU members. My hope is that if we leave, we decide to put in place a unilateral free trade policy (UFT), i.e. a tariff-free policy. UFT has a long historical background and can be seen, as I mentioned in my previous post, all the way back to the repeal of the Corn Laws. Sir Robert Peel commented: “Let, therefore, our commerce be as free as our institutions. Let us proclaim commerce free, and nation after nation will follow our example”. After the repeal of the Corn Laws, many bilateral trade treaties were established with the UK. Could this happen again? I certainly believe so.
UFT is in existence in both Hong Kong and Singapore. I lived and worked in Singapore for a long time and still travel there for work on a regular basis. Although Singapore imposes tariffs on goods such as alcohol and cars (both very expensive over there), according to the WTO the average tariff on imports of manufactured goods is zero. Doesn’t seem to have done them much harm implementing UTF.
Much comment has been made on the various Brexit threads about the ‘strength’ of remaining in the EU to negotiate Free Trade Agreements. I have continually stated that I do not accept this, so let’s look at a few facts. As we know, all 28 countries have to agree a FTA – which led to the ridiculous situation last year when the Canada deal was help up by Wallonia. In fact, I do not see how the EU’s track record in establishing FTA’s can be seen as anything other than very weak. Yes, there are a large number of FTA’s in place, but many are with former colonies of EU members and did not need too much effort. Furthermore, the EU still has no FTA’s with the US, China, Japan, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico and Indonesia, amongst others. It is also interesting to note that the EU has relatively few FTA’s with Commonwealth countries; one would hope that this would not be a big problem for us. And it is worth highlighting that the Commonwealth is not small. According to the book ‘Old Links and New Ties’, it stretches across 54 independent nations, embracing 16 realms and 38 republics or other monarchies and somewhere above 2 billion people, just about a third of the human race – and, on paper at least, an economic area with 20% of the world’s trade and growth prospects. That is very attractive growth potential for the UK. It certainly does no harm that many of these nations use the English language and have legal strictures based on English common law.
So how has the supposed negotiating expertise of the EU actually benefited the UK in existing FTAs? Existing FTAs only cover 14% of our goods exports and 9% of our services exports. For services, more than 80% of the value of the markets covered are accounted for by exports to Norway and Switzerland. I have no doubt that we can, at the absolute minimum, match this.
One more point: some of the FTAs established by the EU are known as ‘mixed-competence’ agreements. This means that, using the EU/Korean FTA as an example, all that is needed for the UK to continue post-Brexit would be a statement by the UK that it intended to continue to operate the terms of the FTA with Korea, and a corresponding statement by Korea agreeing the same. Doesn’t sound too tough to me. Even when we look at the FTAs that are not ‘mixed-competence’, how difficult would it be to simply agree to carry on with a deal that existed beforehand?
And why should we have to take many years to establish a FTA as is the case with the EU. Look at Australia – they placed a deadline on trade negotiations with Korea, China and Japan – as a result it took six months to sign a deal with Korea, eight months with Japan, and 13 months with China. Do you really believe that we could not do this as well as Australia? Bottom line, as long as we restrict negotiations to matters of trade only, signing trade deals should not be that difficult or lengthy. The EU takes so long because it has no choice but to get bogged down with innumerable local regulations, standards, and legal disputes. 27 years to negotiate a trade agreement with the US and it still probably won’t happen!
Ueli Maurer, the Swiss Finance Minister, was quoted in the FT in March this year: “The UK has lots of advantages and if they are used cleverly to decouple from the EU, as well as the new freedom in a good bilateral relationship, the UK could develop very positively – I’m convinced of that.”
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).
I've put that post to some others. Apparently there are a few inaccuracies. China/Aus deal took ten years, not 13 months, and Walloons held up Canada deal a whole two weeks (gosh crikey! Two weeks!) - more to come as we get it
Oh and I'll also step in and flatly stare down the whole Singapore/HK city-state comparison. Mate.
The Aussie PM, Tony Abbott, said that negotiations were getting nowhere with Japan and China - he then set a deadline - after setting a deadline, it was resolved in months.
My point about Wallonia, as you know full well, was an example of how deals can be held up for minor issues.
What is your point about Singapore?
Mate? Don't think I know you but we are fellow Charlton supporters so maybe that's what you mean.
Comments
I am sure she is savvy enough not to go for a cup of tea with a couple of geezers from Moscow, but the more people follow her the less chance there is that she might come to harm. And yes, I seriously believe that might happen.
Bloody unpatriotic experts
Its cold outside..... Blame brexit.
However, it is relatively unusual to have banking roles across the industry transfer out of one finanacial marketplace into another; it might even be said to be unique...
PS It's pissing in Belfast, as well as cold. Taking your advice into account, Brexit must be an even bigger fcuk up than I had thought. :-)
It doesn't matter whether brexit is totally successful or not, some of you will always find negatives, irs become tedious.
Its raining here now, we know who to blame.
The Single Market can be defined as the geographic area within which EU regulation creates ease of doing business for members and around which the EU creates a protective trade barrier. In essence this means that, currently, we trade on an equal footing with all other members. Under the Customs Union, members may not impose tariffs or non-tariff barriers on imports from other EU members. However, all members do impose a centrally agreed tariff rate on imports from the rest of the world (Common External Tariff - CET). It should be noted that this does not mean that there is a common tariff rate – there are a myriad of tariffs that can be incredibly confusing. For instance, seven different tariffs apply to coffee. The tariff structure continually changes and it is incredibly difficult to find out why changes occur in numerous cases. At times, it seems that a change happens just because one industry has a louder lobbyist. It is never clear how the interest of the consumer is taken into account.
In the event that we leave the EU, the CET would be imposed upon the UK – as far as I can ascertain, the average tariff on manufactured goods is about 4% - this is what we might face. It is higher for some industries such as 10% for automobiles.
Non-tariff barriers are more of a hassle and form a key part of the EU’s trade barrier against non-EU members. My hope is that if we leave, we decide to put in place a unilateral free trade policy (UFT), i.e. a tariff-free policy. UFT has a long historical background and can be seen, as I mentioned in my previous post, all the way back to the repeal of the Corn Laws. Sir Robert Peel commented: “Let, therefore, our commerce be as free as our institutions. Let us proclaim commerce free, and nation after nation will follow our example”. After the repeal of the Corn Laws, many bilateral trade treaties were established with the UK. Could this happen again? I certainly believe so.
UFT is in existence in both Hong Kong and Singapore. I lived and worked in Singapore for a long time and still travel there for work on a regular basis. Although Singapore imposes tariffs on goods such as alcohol and cars (both very expensive over there), according to the WTO the average tariff on imports of manufactured goods is zero. Doesn’t seem to have done them much harm implementing UTF.
Much comment has been made on the various Brexit threads about the ‘strength’ of remaining in the EU to negotiate Free Trade Agreements. I have continually stated that I do not accept this, so let’s look at a few facts. As we know, all 28 countries have to agree a FTA – which led to the ridiculous situation last year when the Canada deal was help up by Wallonia. In fact, I do not see how the EU’s track record in establishing FTA’s can be seen as anything other than very weak. Yes, there are a large number of FTA’s in place, but many are with former colonies of EU members and did not need too much effort. Furthermore, the EU still has no FTA’s with the US, China, Japan, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico and Indonesia, amongst others. It is also interesting to note that the EU has relatively few FTA’s with Commonwealth countries; one would hope that this would not be a big problem for us. And it is worth highlighting that the Commonwealth is not small. According to the book ‘Old Links and New Ties’, it stretches across 54 independent nations, embracing 16 realms and 38 republics or other monarchies and somewhere above 2 billion people, just about a third of the human race – and, on paper at least, an economic area with 20% of the world’s trade and growth prospects. That is very attractive growth potential for the UK. It certainly does no harm that many of these nations use the English language and have legal strictures based on English common law.
So how has the supposed negotiating expertise of the EU actually benefited the UK in existing FTAs? Existing FTAs only cover 14% of our goods exports and 9% of our services exports. For services, more than 80% of the value of the markets covered are accounted for by exports to Norway and Switzerland. I have no doubt that we can, at the absolute minimum, match this.
One more point: some of the FTAs established by the EU are known as ‘mixed-competence’ agreements. This means that, using the EU/Korean FTA as an example, all that is needed for the UK to continue post-Brexit would be a statement by the UK that it intended to continue to operate the terms of the FTA with Korea, and a corresponding statement by Korea agreeing the same. Doesn’t sound too tough to me. Even when we look at the FTAs that are not ‘mixed-competence’, how difficult would it be to simply agree to carry on with a deal that existed beforehand?
And why should we have to take many years to establish a FTA as is the case with the EU. Look at Australia – they placed a deadline on trade negotiations with Korea, China and Japan – as a result it took six months to sign a deal with Korea, eight months with Japan, and 13 months with China. Do you really believe that we could not do this as well as Australia? Bottom line, as long as we restrict negotiations to matters of trade only, signing trade deals should not be that difficult or lengthy. The EU takes so long because it has no choice but to get bogged down with innumerable local regulations, standards, and legal disputes. 27 years to negotiate a trade agreement with the US and it still probably won’t happen!
Ueli Maurer, the Swiss Finance Minister, was quoted in the FT in March this year: “The UK has lots of advantages and if they are used cleverly to decouple from the EU, as well as the new freedom in a good bilateral relationship, the UK could develop very positively – I’m convinced of that.”
Brexit will be a disaster, the facts prove it will be, how many times do you have to be told before you understand?
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?
Oh and I'll also step in and flatly stare down the whole Singapore/HK city-state comparison. Mate.
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.
The biggest problem with assuming that current EU FTAs could be rolled over would be that, just as with the WTO schedules, other countries may seek to improve the agreement from their perspective - https://thetimes.co.uk/article/doubts-on-piggyback-trade-deals-after-britain-leaves-eu-vwsp0g2sj. The wording of the current EU FTAs would be key, & mixed agreements may be automatically terminated on exit (he said plagiarising from a pre-Referendum blog: eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/brexit-and-eu-uk-trade-relations-with.html). Even in the best case scenario, renegotiation could be the order of the day in many cases.
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).
For what it's worth, here's an interesting article on how the EU trade negotiations work: ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/article-218-the-new-article-50/.
My point about Wallonia, as you know full well, was an example of how deals can be held up for minor issues.
What is your point about Singapore?
Mate? Don't think I know you but we are fellow Charlton supporters so maybe that's what you mean.