Discussing the impact of Brexit

Dave X

Well-known Member
Don't need too! Let's put it another way. If we sign a trade agreement with another Country. We don't need to offer the same terms and conditions to any other WTO members.
Just quoting what many others on this blog have said. Yet the same people seem to think we don't have the right to sign trade agreements. If we do, then we will be in conflict with the WTO.

I'd suggest you really should go read up, as you aren't getting the detail correct.

To try make it simple, if you trade with a country on WTO rules the conditions/tariffs applied must be identical to every other country you trade with on WTO rules. So if we traded with the EU on WTO rules and dropped all tariffs we would have to drop all tariffs to every other country we trade with on WTO rules.

If you sign a trade agreement with a country or bloc you are trading on the agreement rules with that country or bloc, not WTO rules.
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
I've looked at and Good God, how do they get that to work effectively? As I said in an earlier post 'It's Pass the parcel governance.'
So when it comes to European Laws & Budget, who has primacy. There are five different bodies with an input and two more who have some form of oversight. Although we can reduce it to six and take the European Court of Auditors out of it completely.
A few years ago the President of either Romania or it could have been Bulgaria? Had a railway line built from the country's capital to his father's home village. When questioned he said it was to boost tourism? In the first year it certainly didn't work. Few bothered using it, was alright for his Dad though! Paid for by the EU and approved by all seven bodies with responsibility for the EU budget.
Thanks for the chart, it confirms what I thought. A system that lends itself to deal making behind closed doors.

You're being deliberately obtuse Ron, because it's clear you already have your view of how the EU works, and therefore are trying to fit what you see around that like some kind of comfort blanket.

Whereas I'm trying to point out to you how it works. Objectively.

Of course mistakes do get made; the situation with Romania that you describe above I'd never even heard of but happy to admit on that one.

But in terms of the budget and laws there are more checks and balances than you seem to realise, and if anything it's less behind closed doors and more out in the open for everyone to see. Which is why you get so many disagreements and slow movements. Such is the nature of keeping 27 states all happy. Happy to acknowledge though that some voices are louder than others, but that's no different to any other organisational structure.

For example read this for an idea of how much input there is to implementation.


To be quite honest though with all due respect, your sentiment is one I and others have encountered regularly on here since 2016. An unwillingness to actually see the reality over the fantasy. The fantasy that key Brexiteers of the Leave campaign concocted as part of the big bad EU storyline. Sadly one that was then lapped up by a great many people. I've no desire to go through it all again. There are other links from the links I've posted that explain all the other workings.

Simply the notion that we had no say and were dictated to is just plain nonsense. And decisions were made behind closed doors without us. Being one of the key members alongside Germany and France, we especially had a very loud voice in decision making processes.
 

Ron Hilditch

Well-known Member
If we’ve signed a trade Agreement with another country, we won’t therefore be trading with them under WTO rules in the future.

However, if we have no trade Agreement with the EU, we are therefore trading with them under WTO rules. If we chose to remove all tariffs on EU goods coming into the U.K., we would be obliged to remove tariffs on goods coming in to the U.K. from all all other countries that we trade with under WTO rules too.
So Canada has a trade agreement with Mexico and an entirely different one with the EU. Why are these different trade agreements not breaching WTO rules.
 

Dave X

Well-known Member
So Canada has a trade agreement with Mexico and an entirely different one with the EU. Why are these different trade agreements not breaching WTO rules.

Because both trade agreements mean they aren't trading under WTO rules.

The clue is in the fact they have trade agreements.

Surely you can't really be so obtuse?
 

Ron Hilditch

Well-known Member
Because both trade agreements mean they aren't trading under WTO rules.

The clue is in the fact they have trade agreements.

Surely you can't really be so obtuse?
No in fact you make my point very well. Any Country can sign as many trade deals as it wants, without breaking WTO rules. So we don't sign an agreement with the EU. We then trade with them under WTO rules. Doesn't have any effect on our trading relationship with any other Countries. We can sign anything we want with any one we want.
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
So Canada has a trade agreement with Mexico and an entirely different one with the EU. Why are these different trade agreements not breaching WTO rules.

Because Canada doesn't trade with either Mexico or the EU via WTO terms, as they have trade Agreements in place...

Countries can trade with other countries on both WTO rules (with one country) and specific Trade Agreements (with another).
 

Dave X

Well-known Member
No in fact you make my point very well. Any Country can sign as many trade deals as it wants, without breaking WTO rules. So we don't sign an agreement with the EU. We then trade with them under WTO rules. Doesn't have any effect on our trading relationship with any other Countries. We can sign anything we want with any one we want.

You don't seem to get the fact we don't have trade agreements with the majority of countries in the world...

Trade agreements don't take weeks or months, you're usually looking at years to negotiate a trade agreement. Without looking it up, the EU-Canada deal took something like seven years to negotiate.
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
No in fact you make my point very well. Any Country can sign as many trade deals as it wants, without breaking WTO rules. So we don't sign an agreement with the EU. We then trade with them under WTO rules. Doesn't have any effect on our trading relationship with any other Countries. We can sign anything we want with any one we want.

I've just realised that two other posters had already attempted to clarify your confusion, but it appears to still be an issue.

As an example, if we don't sign a specific Trade Agreement with the EU, we will therefore be trading with them under WTO terms, as we also will with countries that we have not signed specific Trade Agreements with (for example Liberia). If we then make the decision to remove all tariffs on imported products from the EU, we would be obliged to also remove all tariffs on products being imported from Liberia.

However, in contrast, if we do sign a specific Trade Agreement with the EU, whatever terms that Agreement includes bare no relevance at all on our WTO terms with Liberia.

Therefore, if we don't sign a specific Trade Agreement with the EU (who are our closest trading partner), whatever terms we then implement with them will come under WTO rules, and would have to be applied to all trade with all other WTO members.
 

sbriggs

Well-known Member
Also missing the point that you can’t just sign a trade agreement of any type as a member of the WTO they have to meet certain criteria
 

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
Just to clarify WTO rules.
if the EU negotiates a trade deal with another country. The same rules have to be applied across the board?

No because a trade deal will have been signed between both parties and therefore will not be subject to WTO rules. WTO rules are a fallback position nobody in their right mind would use out of choice.

Is the EU a member of the WTO? If so why can't we get the same trade deal with them as Canada?

The EU is a member of the WTO, alongside every member of the EU being a member of the WTO in their own right. It took a decade or more for the EU and Canada to thrash out a trade deal. That trade deal is bespoke to Canada and wouldn't really work for us for many reasons. When politicians like Johnson and Gove say "We can get a Canada deal" they are pulling a fast one.

If the EU isn't a member of the WTO and Canada is. Does this break WTO rules.
Most countries around the World have negotiated trade deals with other Countries. So how many of them are WTO members?

As I've said the EU is a member of the WTO. There are currently 164 members of the WTO as of 2016. What I guess you won't appreciate is the sheer scale of the WTO's bureaucracy and how long it can take to resolve trade disputes. It makes the EU look like a fluffy bunny rabbit.

Think when it came to Boris's 'Oven Ready Deal,' he was referring to a Canada style trade agreement.

No that was in reference to the Withdrawal Treaty, that's what ended the article 50 process and started the trade talks. All we've left in terms of the EU is the political and law making side of it. To fully separate from the EU we need to negotiate a trade deal that works for the UK and the EU or leave without a deal. Boris Johnson is an idiot for firstly sticking a time limit on the negotiations and fundamentally misunderstanding how the EU works aka Merkel or Macron will not come to the rescue to fudge a trade deal on the kind of terms that would be palatable to Johnson and one he could sell to the ERG types (the only brexit they want is No Deal). Same mistake Cameron made that pretty much opened up a path to the 2016 vote.

So we'll either get a thin deal that will need to be reworked at a later date (aka the fudge option that doesn't really resolve anything) or we end up with No Deal. Which would probably see the Bond Markets setting the UK Government a deadline to mitigate the impacts (scrabble for a deal with the EU in the other words, the EU unless forced to by the bond markets can simply put us at the back of the queue if they so please, they've got other trade deals cooking and the possibility of progress being made on it's relationship with the US) or the UK will face credit rating cuts.

All I can say is the Bond Markets have yet to slash the EU's AAA rating (not even during the Greek debt crisis), while the UK's had yet another notch taken off by Moody's several weeks ago.

The real exit day for the UK out of the EU wasn't this past January, it's January 1st 2021. Either we'll have a deal going through the ratification process or it'll be No Deal.
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
Of course Boris will sort it out soon...course he will...wont he...course he will, especially if it affects his travelling movements/holidays

Oh yes. The prospect of popping our Boris onto a truck and shipping him over to France for good is one of delight :laugh:
 

Ron Hilditch

Well-known Member
Because Canada doesn't trade with either Mexico or the EU via WTO terms, as they have trade Agreements in place...

Countries can trade with other countries on both WTO rules (with one country) and specific Trade Agreements (with another).
At last we have got there. Thank you !
 

sbriggs

Well-known Member
Where did I leave that large digger I lent you last week

oh here it is

1606251329581.jpeg
 
Last edited:

richp007

Distinguished Member
Sounds about right. Another voice here not to be scoffed at.


And this also sounds about right :laugh: This numpty needs to stop embarrassing himself and Brexit voters.


But it also drew some serious criticism from former negotiator Sydney Nash.

"The Automotive industry has not been quiet about declining petrol or diesel sales, nor has it been quiet about the desperate need to decarbonise or the challenge of doing so at the speed required.

The Automotive industry is very vocal, & if senior politicians haven't heard what it is saying, one has to assume that those politicians are making a conscious choice not to listen.

Backing the Automotive sector means ensuring it is not subject to crippling tariffs, and that it has preferential access to the biggest market in the world, the EU.

A UK/EU trade deal is an absolute must for the Automotive sector, an absolute must for the 180,000 employed in auto manufacturing & the 864,000 employed across the whole sector, an absolute must for the communities across the UK that rely on automotive for their prosperity.

So when Automotive points out that no-deal will have a hugely damaging effect, they do so, no because they are engaged in project fear, but because they understand how the world works, & care about jobs & prosperity in the UK. Can the same be said of some of these politicians?

Those politicians who want the UK to end the yr without a deal know that they are gambling, but they are gambling with someone else's job, someone else's business, someone else's livelihood. They will be amune from the consequences of no-deal & they know it.

So when they dismiss concerns as project fear they are trying to distract & tap into the loyalty of the leave tribe by evoking the messages use into 2016. What they want, what they have always wanted, is for us to buy the product without ever looking at the price.
 
Last edited:

Panavision

Distinguished Member
I do wonder how profoundly negative it will be leaving the EU for some people. The impact, I fear, for some will be immense. Although many knew what they were voting for, I don't think they understood or considered the implications of leaving the biggest single market in the world without knowing a plan was in place for their future. No Marshall Plan here.

Let's hope that the impact isn't profoundly negative in the short term. In the long term I'm more optimistic, but the next few months could be quite a problem.
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
I do wonder how profoundly negative it will be leaving the EU for some people. The impact, I fear, for some will be immense. Although many knew what they were voting for, I don't think they understood or considered the implications of leaving the biggest single market in the world without knowing a plan was in place for their future. No Marshall Plan here.

Let's hope that the impact isn't profoundly negative in the short term. In the long term I'm more optimistic, but the next few months could be quite a problem.

Long term benefit will be of no comfort to those who are crippled by short term damage. One doesn't outweigh the other, despite what some would try have us believe.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Philips TV Launch Event, Soundbar vs AVR, Samsung EzCAL and more...

Latest News

Philips debuts fifth generation P5 Picture Processing Suite
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 27th January 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Philips introduces new 9206 and 8506 LED Android TVs for 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Philips unveils 9636 and 9506 MiniLED TVs
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Philips announces 806, 856 and 706 OLED TVs for 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom