Advantages of Leaving the EU

Malvern

Active Member
Yes British businesses employ more people from the EU instead of British people. That’s a great advantage of Brexit, more unemployment and then employment tax paid to other countries, genius :facepalm: Lets take back control:censored:
You use that face slapping emoji quite a lot, there are other options.

sorry, if you wanted me to discuss your point I don't see the need to, I am out of the USoE now, i can't be forced to. However, under Scottish law I could be charged for thinking bad things and we want to rejoin the USoE, happy days.
 

ChuckMountain

Distinguished Member
sorry, if you wanted me to discuss your point I don't see the need to, I am out of the USoE now, i can't be forced to. However, under Scottish law I could be charged for thinking bad things and we want to rejoin the USoE, happy days.

You're right of course I can't force you to discuss a point, particularly if it doesn't have a nice answer that fits being out of the EU narrative. A bit like a load of the Brexit focussed politicians, don't answer the question and then bury their head in the sand and hope it all gets better by itself :D
 

Malvern

Active Member
You're right of course I can't force you to discuss a point, particularly if it doesn't have a nice answer that fits being out of the EU narrative. A bit like a load of the Brexit focussed politicians, don't answer the question and then bury their head in the sand and hope it all gets better by itself :D
Let me guess, all the questions are "what is better now when all I see is worse?" (or something similar, maybe in a mexican voice but could be Greek I suppose)
 

Erlang168

Standard Member
Or the USoE can threaten to keep vaccines from Northern Ireland.

Let's play the whataboutery game.
My last comment is relevant to the postponement of full and proper customs and PS checks required by treaties your reply on vaccines is the whataboutism.
 

Malvern

Active Member
My last comment is relevant to the postponement of full and proper customs and PS checks required by treaties your reply on vaccines is the whataboutism.
Our treaty obligations are to comply with export products going to the EU and making sure the products we produce at present meet EU standards which they do.

Our import border checks are not in the treaty, would be a bit strange if we were told to check everything coming into the UK if we didn't want to.
 

Agrippa 57

Well-known Member
Our treaty obligations are to comply with export products going to the EU and making sure the products we produce at present meet EU standards which they do.

Our import border checks are not in the treaty, would be a bit strange if we were told to check everything coming into the UK if we didn't want to.
You might find that the WTO might not agree with your take here. Unless, of course, you are proposing this as policy across the board. ie from all trading partners.
 

Malvern

Active Member
You might find that the WTO might not agree with your take here. Unless, of course, you are proposing this as policy across the board. ie from all trading partners.
Well the WTO can take us to task for not doing border checks we don't want to do and lets see where that gets them. Doesn't really matter if we say 5 countries will have no checks or 275 countries, we are the ones checking, or not in this case.
 

Agrippa 57

Well-known Member
Well the WTO can take us to task for not doing border checks we don't want to do and lets see where that gets them.
You're right, of course. Perhaps we should leave the WTO as well. As what you go on to suggest is in direct contravention of their rules.
 
Last edited:

Erlang168

Standard Member
Well the WTO can take us to task for not doing border checks we don't want to do and lets see where that gets them. Doesn't really matter if we say 5 countries will have no checks or 275 countries, we are the ones checking, or not in this case.
Agrippa, understands. I wasn’t referring to the UK - EU treaty. MFN is a mainstay of the WTO, and any nation can lodge a complaint against any nation abusing MFN. Plus it will rear its head in any future treaty or rollover negotiations. This seems to be a feature of many in the ERG sphere of influence. Free trade is regarded as swashbuckling and devil may care to rules. Rules are for losers apparently.
 

Malvern

Active Member
Agrippa, understands. I wasn’t referring to the UK - EU treaty. MFN is a mainstay of the WTO, and any nation can lodge a complaint against any nation abusing MFN. Plus it will rear its head in any future treaty or rollover negotiations. This seems to be a feature of many in the ERG sphere of influence. Free trade is regarded as swashbuckling and devil may care to rules. Rules are for losers apparently.
Sorry, what rule are we breaking, can you give me a direct example of a rule we are in breach of by deferring checks until 2022?

 

Erlang168

Standard Member
Sorry, what rule are we breaking, can you give me a direct example of a rule we are in breach of by deferring checks until 2022?

An explainer. Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.

I believe the customs and phytosanitary checks are only suspended on import from the EU, and extant on other third countries.
 

Malvern

Active Member
Oh dear, didn't realise, then thought of...

What Is a Free Trade Agreement (FTA)?​

A free trade agreement is a pact between two or more nations to reduce barriers to imports and exports among them. Under a free trade policy, goods and services can be bought and sold across international borders with little or no government tariffs, quotas, subsidies, or prohibitions to inhibit their exchange.


Would like to see that argument go to court, oh which court as we are not under the ECJ and there is no real international court to go to as the WTO has no real power?

So in summation, if two or more countries decide to have no tariffs or checks that is just peachy but if only one side of the transaction decides not to bother checking incoming trade until 2022 that is something that the WTO must stamp down on?
 

Laureline

Active Member
Oh dear, didn't realise, then thought of...

What Is a Free Trade Agreement (FTA)?​

A free trade agreement is a pact between two or more nations to reduce barriers to imports and exports among them. Under a free trade policy, goods and services can be bought and sold across international borders with little or no government tariffs, quotas, subsidies, or prohibitions to inhibit their exchange.


Would like to see that argument go to court, oh which court as we are not under the ECJ and there is no real international court to go to as the WTO has no real power?

So in summation, if two or more countries decide to have no tariffs or checks that is just peachy but if only one side of the transaction decides not to bother checking incoming trade until 2022 that is something that the WTO must stamp down on?

Trump killed off the appellate body of the WTO (and Biden hasn't done anything to resurrect it) forcing the larger blocks to set up their own court .

If the UK has problems with how the EU operates under the WTO then these days it would be an Appellate Court established by the EU and 15 other WTO Member States


If the UK doesn't want to operate under the same rules then this Court and its 15 members (including Australia, China and Canada) can make you pay additional import tariffs until you fall into line

So basically the UK would find itself paying something like a 1% fine on all tariffs (or more likely selected tariffs) on exports to those members until it complies with the WTO rules.
 
Last edited:

Malvern

Active Member
Trump killed off the appellate body of the WTO (and Biden hasn't done anything to resurrect it) forcing the larger blocks to set up their own court .

If the UK has problems with how the EU operates under the WTO then these days it would be an Appellate Court established by the EU and 15 other WTO Member States


If the UK doesn't want to operate under the same rules then this Court and its 15 members (including Australia, China and Canada) can make you pay additional import tariffs until you fall into line

So basically the UK would find itself paying something like a 1% fine on all tariffs (or more likely selected tariffs) on exports to those members until it complies with the WTO rules.
Thank you for the detailed information.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: LG C1 OLED + JBL Synthesis SDR-35 First Thoughts, plus TV Show & Disc Reviews & more
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom