Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

catbear

First Up wrote: »

Of course they might be able to negotiate a better deal. Obama (and others) have said that could take up to ten years but maybe Trump will speed it up a bit.

I don't see how trump could speed anything up if there's stuff in there that the EU don't like. The trading relationship that the UK has with all the EU/EEA took decades to build and just because the UK is leaving doesn't mean everything is reset to zero for the UK unless they start actively rescinding the existing agreements, which would be trade negative.

In future EU/USA trade deals the UK will be a side issue. That won't stop shysters from putting lipstick on the pig that is Brexit.

PopePalpatine

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As I said already, yon dude's response doesn't contradict his boss's enthusiastic support for a trade deal with the UK.

Do you think that Trump's apparent enthusiasm for a trade deal with the UK is out of the goodness of his heart, or a willingness to help the UK stick it to an allegedly "elitist" EU? Nah, it'll be about what the USA could gain if the UK went for the full retard hard Brexit and ended up locked out of the Common Market.

First Up

catbear wrote:

I don't see how trump could speed anything up if there's stuff in there that the EU don't like. The trading relationship that the UK has with all the EU/EEA took decades to build and just because the UK is leaving doesn't mean everything is reset to zero for the UK unless they start actively rescinding the existing agreements, which would be trade negative.

The UK will negotiate its deal direct with the US. Why would the EU be involved? After Brexit, the UK ceases to be part of the EU.

catbear wrote:

In future EU/USA trade deals the UK will be a side issue. That won't stop shysters from putting lipstick on the pig that is Brexit.

I'm talking about the UK/US trade deal. EU/US trade arrangements will not be changed by Brexit.

Nate--IRL--

catbear wrote: »

I don't see how trump could speed anything up if there's stuff in there that the EU don't like. The trading relationship that the UK has with all the EU/EEA took decades to build and just because the UK is leaving doesn't mean everything is reset to zero for the UK unless they start actively rescinding the existing agreements, which would be trade negative.

All existing EU Treaties between the EU and Leaving state are rescinded in full at the conclusion of Article 50. That is one of the pillars of Article 50. They don't get to stay in the bits they like.

Nate

Capt'n Midnight

RobertKK wrote: »

What is to stop the UK lowering it's corporation tax even further than proposed?
Give big incentives?
The result being the UK taking possible US jobs.

There is going to be no free lunch.

Diminishing returns. Every % cut in tax means lower income unless you get a greater tax base.

UK corporate tax is 20% , ours is 12.5%

To offset a reduction to our level they'd have to attract 60% more manufacturing profit to be taxed. That's the breakeven point.

However, the pound has fallen 20% so they'd have to attract around 90% more profit to get back to levels before the Brexit vote.

And of course all the new companies will get massive tax breaks and sweeteners so you won't even get close to breaking even for years.


And to top it all those companies would be outside of the EU so the only benefits compared to the rest of the world would be low shipping costs or high quality. Most of the costs of shipping by sea are getting the stuff to and onto and then off and from the ship, so the UK isn't particularly cheaper. (Quick delivery times are no longer as critical now that trains from China take only two weeks.) Quality isn't something you can't do overnight. Rolls Royce's Trent Jet Engine is a development of the 1960's RB211 and there was a huge amount of state aid along the way, probably way more than any recent government would have spent.

end of the road

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Is it true that you can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep ?

Today's other Nigel-News

Former aide to Nigel Farage admits fraud in the US And Farage distances himself

"Listen, I can't be responsible for what everyone around me does"

wouldn't expect anything less from flipflop farage. complete creeten.

Capt'n Midnight

Just another example of the costs of Brexit and how money sent to the EU doesn't stay there.

UK nuclear fusion lab faces uncertain future

Under the current arrangement, the UK contributes about 45m euros a year to Europe's fusion programme - and gets more money back with £45m a year to run the JET facility plus another £7m a year to support research.

First Up

Nate--IRL-- wrote:

All existing EU Treaties between the EU and Leaving state are rescinded in full at the conclusion of Article 50. That is one of the pillars of Article 50. They don't get to stay in the bits they like.

I expect the UK will suggest to the US that as a first step, trade be continued on the same terms as with the EU until they get around to negotiating a bilateral deal. The US might agree - which would buy the overstretched UK some badly needed time. I expect that will be the UK's strategy in all markets - how those markets respond remains to be seen.

The UK might get away with that, although its hard to see why the US and others wouldn't want to drive a harder bargain as the UK has only 10% of the EU's leverage.

If the UK really expects to negotiate better terms with markets like the US, they will need some magic.

Fratton Fred

First Up wrote: »

Maybe. More importantly, neither do they.

Who are "they"?

Each person may have had their own unique reason for voting to leave, the problem is, they are many and varied reasons. The problem the government is facing is ascertaining exactly what the core reasons are, other than a general discontent with the status quo.

catbear

First Up wrote: »

I expect the UK will suggest to the US that as a first step, trade be continued on the same terms as with the EU until they get around to negotiating a bilateral deal. .

Why do people expect the world to realign in the UKs favour after Brexit? It's not like Britain was being charitable when it was asset stripping the world during its empire days. that hasn't been forgotten by the nations to who the UK now looks to for favour.

First Up

catbear wrote:

Why do people expect the world to realign in the UKs favour after Brexit? It's not like Britain was being charitable when it was asset stripping the world during its empire days. that hasn't been forgotten by the nations to who the UK now looks to for favour.

Absolutely. They are hoping old colonial ties will stand to them but business is business.

First Up

Fratton Fred wrote:

Each person may have had their own unique reason for voting to leave, the problem is, they are many and varied reasons. The problem the government is facing is ascertaining exactly what the core reasons are, other than a general discontent with the status quo.

Ah sure god love them.

steddyeddy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I wrote "yon", short for yonder.

Like I said, his comments are both true and don't contradict his boss's enthusiastic support for a deal with the UK.

Can't make sense of your post really. Trump's trade minister says steal trade from the UK and you say it doesn't contradict Trump. If you believe that then I feel sorry for you.

Christy42

First Up wrote: »

Absolutely. They are hoping old colonial ties will stand to them but business is business.

Honestly they seem to be looking for charity at this point. May as well call a spade a spade.

PopePalpatine

Think of it this way, just because someone's first in line at a fire sale doesn't mean they're going to give the seller a great deal.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Of course they might be able to negotiate a better deal. Obama (and others) have said that could take up to ten years but maybe Trump will speed it up a bit.

The problem there is that Trump's enthusiasm for a trade deal with the UK is a double-edged sword; the kind of trade deal that arouses Donald Trump's enthusiasm is the kind of trade deal that no other country will want to enter into.

The least worst option from the UK's point of view is that Trump turns out to be a one-term president, and that in 2020 - a mere year or so so after Brexit has actually happened - he is replaced with a President who (a) favours a trade deal with the UK, and (b) has minimally sane ideas about what a good trade deal looks like. They can then get into the business of negotiating a trade relationship with the US which, with a bit of luck, might be somewhat comparable to the one they shredded when they Brexited.

Iwasfrozen

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A majority voted for Clinton.

But I think you'll find a good few used the vote as an opinion poll about the government. And the large number of people who didn't vote because everyone thought remain would win.



Anyway we still don't know what Brexit is , apart from it being the colours used by many EU countries Vive la France !


And it's not even Brexit unless they ditch Norn Iron.


If the UK leaves the EU what's to stop the EU doing stuff like dumping steel into the UK ?

The reasons why people voted Brexit are irrelevant, they voted to leave and that has to be carried out.

I don't even know what you're talking about with NI and Steel.

Iwasfrozen

First Up wrote: »

I wonder what you mean by "access"?

The US is currently the UK's largest single export market and benefits from the relatively low tarrifs between the EU and US. When (if) the TTIP is concluded, tarrifs in both directions will be lower still.

But the UK will be out of the EU by then and the US trade negotiator has said that the UK will be placed on the same (higher) tarrif regime as China and India.

Of course they might be able to negotiate a better deal. Obama (and others) have said that could take up to ten years but maybe Trump will speed it up a bit.

I mean a free trade agreement, no such deal exists between the EU and the US and Trump will dump TTIP.

I doubt that, both Canada and Mexico already have free trade deals with the US. Clearly being a smaller economy than the US does not preclude one from a free trade deal with them.

Iwasfrozen

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Do you think that Trump's apparent enthusiasm for a trade deal with the UK is out of the goodness of his heart, or a willingness to help the UK stick it to an allegedly "elitist" EU? Nah, it'll be about what the USA could gain if the UK went for the full retard hard Brexit and ended up locked out of the Common Market.

Perhaps you could enlighten me to how the US could "exploit" a free trade deal with the UK?

Do they "exploit" Canada? A much smaller economy than the UK?

Iwasfrozen

steddyeddy wrote: »

Can't make sense of your post really. Trump's trade minister says steal trade from the UK and you say it doesn't contradict Trump. If you believe that then I feel sorry for you.

Other countries should always look out for themselves, that's expected. When I say his secretary doesn't contradict his boss I mean to say he doesn't rule out a free trade deal.

But clearly leverage isn't the issue. Canada has a much smaller economy than the UK and they have a free trade deal with the US.

So clearly having a smaller economy than the US doesn't rule out a trade deal with them.

Wanderer78

Iwasfrozen wrote:

Other countries should always look out for themselves, that's expected. When I say his secretary doesn't contradict his boss I mean to say he doesn't rule out a free trade deal.

I'd disagree there, if we don't start co-operating globally very soon, we may forget about our planet and species surviving. Im now refusing to call these deals 'free trade deals', as there's nothing free about them for the majority, they truly mean deregulation and increased worker insecurity

Peregrinus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Other countries should always look out for themselves, that's expected. When I say his secretary doesn't contradict his boss I mean to say he doesn't rule out a free trade deal.

The whole point about a deal is that it won't happen unless it's in both parties' interests. (Or, acknowledging Wanderer78's point, unless each party at least thinks the deal is in their interests.)

Which means, as you rightly point out, that it's perfectly possible for a big economy and a small economy to make a deal. As long as they both benefit from the deal, the disparity in size is no obstacle to making the deal.

But that's not the issue here. The issue is whether the kind of deal that Trump is enthusiastic for is the kind of deal that will advantage both parties. If it isn't, the deal will never happen, no matter how enthusiastic Trump is. (Unless, perchance, the UK government feels there is political advantage to making a deal, any deal, to show that post-Brexit UK can make deals.)

All the evidence is that the kind of deal Trump likes is not a deal that is likely to advantage the other party. He's entirely open about his view of deals in his tellingly-named book, The Art of the Deal, and the impression created by that book has been reinforced by his comments about the US's trade deals in particular.

Trump is nothing if not unpredictable, and it's entirely possible that, as President, he will confound everything he has ever said and done in the past in the trade deals he is willing to make. But if the UK's post-Brexit trade deal strategy involves banking on a complete volte-face by Trump, I'm unimpressed by their trade deal strategy.

Wanderer78

Peregrinus wrote: »

The whole point about a deal is that it won't happen unless it's in both parties' interests. (Or, acknowledging Wanderer78's point, unless each party at least thinks the deal is in their interests.)

Which means, as you rightly point out, that it's perfectly possible for a big economy and a small economy to make a deal. As long as they both benefit from the deal, the disparity in size is no obstacle to making the deal.

But that's not the issue here. The issue is whether the kind of deal that Trump is enthusiastic for is the kind of deal that will advantage both parties. If it isn't. the deal will never happen, no matter how enthusiastic Trump is. (Unless, perchance, the UK government feels there is political advantage to making a deal, any deal, to show that post-Brexit UK can make deals.)

All the evidence is that the kind of deal Trump likes is not a deal that is likely to advantage the other party. He's entirely open about his view of deals in his tellingly-named book, The Art of the Deal, and the impression created by that book has been reinforced by his comments about the US's trade deals in particular.

Trump is nothing if not unpredictable, and it's entirely possible that, as President, he will confound everything he has ever said and done in the past in the trade deals he is willing to make. But if the UK's post-Brexit trade deal strategy involves banking on a complete volte-face by Trump, I'm unimpressed by their trade deal strategy.

ha-joon chang explains very well how trade deals have done great damage to developing economies. i do think smaller economies generally come off worse in these deals.

Peregrinus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

ha-joon chang explains very well how trade deals have done great damage to developing economies. i do think smaller economies generally come off worse in these deals.

Well, a lot of the people who voted for Trump (or who seek to explain the vote for Trump) think that the US has come off pretty badly in the trade deals that it has made.

On the other hand, if we think of the Single Market as a particularly free free trade deal, we can point to small economies that have done very well out of it, thanks very much.

I think a lot depends on what metric you use to measure how "well" a country has done out of a trade deal. For example, it's possible that a country might become wealthier overall, with a higher tax base and a better capacity to provide services to citizens, but see wealth or income more unevenly distributed, so that the poor become relatively (or even absolutely) poorer. Has that country done well or badly out of the deal?

But that's really a topic for another thread, maybe. The issue here is that the UK is about to leave a really free free trade deal that covers about half of its foreign trade, and there is a general consensus from all but the borderline delusional that this must be economically damaging to the UK, the implication being that the UK does well out of being in the single market. The general response from Brexiters is either (a) yes, but this damage is worth suffering in order to "regain control", or (b) yes, but this damage will be more than compensated for by the wonderful tailor-made trade deals that the UK will be free to enter into, or (c) some combination of the two points.

If you take the view that free trade deals are basically a Bad Thing, then the Brexiters' problem goes away, because the corollary must be that the UK will benefit from leaving the biggest free trade deal of them all. There are some people who think this, but it seems to be a fairly fringe position.

steddyeddy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Other countries should always look out for themselves, that's expected. When I say his secretary doesn't contradict his boss I mean to say he doesn't rule out a free trade deal.

But clearly leverage isn't the issue. Canada has a much smaller economy than the UK and they have a free trade deal with the US.

So clearly having a smaller economy than the US doesn't rule out a trade deal with them.

Actually now Trump has criticised the free trade deal Canada and Mexico have. It also tuens out his trade secretary is anti free trade.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/trumps-trade-rep-pick-is-yet-another-free-trade-skeptic.html

Iwasfrozen

Peregrinus wrote: »

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Other countries should always look out for themselves, that's expected. When I say his secretary doesn't contradict his boss I mean to say he doesn't rule out a free trade deal.

The whole point about a deal is that it won't happen unless it's in both parties' interests. (Or, acknowledging Wanderer78's point, unless each party at least thinks the deal is in their interests.)

Which means, as you rightly point out, that it's perfectly possible for a big economy and a small economy to make a deal. As long as they both benefit from the deal, the disparity in size is no obstacle to making the deal.

But that's not the issue here. The issue is whether the kind of deal that Trump is enthusiastic for is the kind of deal that will advantage both parties. If it isn't, the deal will never happen, no matter how enthusiastic Trump is. (Unless, perchance, the UK government feels there is political advantage to making a deal, any deal, to show that post-Brexit UK can make deals.)

All the evidence is that the kind of deal Trump likes is not a deal that is likely to advantage the other party. He's entirely open about his view of deals in his tellingly-named book, The Art of the Deal, and the impression created by that book has been reinforced by his comments about the US's trade deals in particular.

Trump is nothing if not unpredictable, and it's entirely possible that, as President, he will confound everything he has ever said and done in the past in the trade deals he is willing to make. But if the UK's post-Brexit trade deal strategy involves banking on a complete volte-face by Trump, I'm unimpressed by their trade deal strategy.

I disagree, Trump has positionef himself as the savior of American working class jobs, this necessitates an opposition to trade deals with low wage countries like Mexico that can in his view, steal working class jobs from America.

But to my knowledge, he has never explicitly opposed a free trade deal with Canada, only as part of the NAFTA agreement Mexico is also part of.

If a free trade deal is possible between the US and Canada I see no reason why a free trade framework between the US, Canada and the UK couldn't work. Neither countries are likely to threaten Trump's core support.

Iwasfrozen

steddyeddy wrote: »

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Other countries should always look out for themselves, that's expected. When I say his secretary doesn't contradict his boss I mean to say he doesn't rule out a free trade deal.

But clearly leverage isn't the issue. Canada has a much smaller economy than the UK and they have a free trade deal with the US.

So clearly having a smaller economy than the US doesn't rule out a trade deal with them.

Actually now Trump has criticised the free trade deal Canada and Mexico have. It also tuens out his trade secretary is anti free trade.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/trumps-trade-rep-pick-is-yet-another-free-trade-skeptic.html

Again,Trump hasn't retracted his his stated desire for a deal with the UK.

Unless Trump explicitly changes his mind, any secretary Trump picks will carry out his boss's policy.

steddyeddy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Again,Trump hasn't retracted his his stated desire for a deal with the UK.

Unless Trump explicitly changes his mind, any secretary Trump picks will carry out his boss's policy.

You're looking at this from a very simplistic viewpoint. A trade deal will likely be worked out but not a free trade one. It will be advantageous for the US.

Iwasfrozen

steddyeddy wrote: »

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Again,Trump hasn't retracted his his stated desire for a deal with the UK.

Unless Trump explicitly changes his mind, any secretary Trump picks will carry out his boss's policy.

You're looking at this from a very simplistic viewpoint. A trade deal will likely be worked out but not a free trade one. It will be advantageous for the US.

What makes you say that?

Canada and the US have a free trade deal, what is special about the UK that precludes it specifically from a mutually beneficial free trade deal?

Peregrinus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I disagree, Trump has positionef himself as the savior of American working class jobs, this necessitates an opposition to trade deals with low wage countries like Mexico that can in his view, steal working class jobs from America.

No, there’s much more to it than that.

Trump has, for example, criticised NAFTA because US producers selling into Mexico suffer VAT (because Mexico imposes VAT) while Mexican producers selling into the US do not suffer VAT (because the US does not impose VAT).

In Trump’s US-centric view, a “fair” trade deal would be one which allows US producers to sell into Mexico on the same terms as they sell in the US. Mexico, of course, could never agree to such a deal, as it would discriminate against Mexican producers in the Mexican market; US producers would be VAT-exempt but Mexican producers would not.

Either Trump knows that Mexico would not agree to such a deal and he is merely posturing when he says he is open to “fair” trade deals, or he is genuinely so stupid that he does not understand why Mexico would never agree to such a deal. Either way, the trade deal which Trump considers “fair” with respect to consumption taxes is one that no other country would ever enter into. The UK in particular will never enter into a trade deal under which US producers are VAT-exempt on their UK sales.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But to my knowledge, he has never explicitly opposed a free trade deal with Canada, only as part of the NAFTA agreement Mexico is also part of.

So what you’re saying is that he opposes the trade deal that the US actually has with Canada, but he has never “explicitly” opposed a trade deal with Canada that doesn’t yet exist, on terms that haven’t been articulated. It’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of a trade deal with Canada, is it?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If a free trade deal is possible between the US and Canada I see no reason why a free trade framework between the US, Canada and the UK couldn't work. Neither countries are likely to threaten Trump's core support.

US Trade deals are possible with both Canada and the US (and indeed Mexico) if we assume that Trump is willing to do trade deals on terms that nothing he has ever said suggests that he will do trade deals on. It’s a pretty big assumption, isn’t it?