Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

You can find out the export destinations of the UK pretty easily online and the value of these to the UK.

If it's that easy, why haven't you provided specific examples of those countries/sectors that will benefit significantly from the UK being out of the EU.

And can you guarantee, using the same data, that the other country/sector combinations won't be harmed by being out of the EU.

You say it's a good thing: prove it with figures that we can examine.

theological wrote: »

The benefits to liberalising trade are obvious. More UK goods going to other destinations, more goods coming into the UK at better prices, jobs being created and so on.

Indeed the benefits of liberalising trade are obvious - that's one of the key elements off EU membership, and a driving force behind EU-RoW FTAs. So be more explicit: what UK goods are going to be going to which other destinations in such quantity that it'll outweigh the loss of the UK's access to the EU SM?

Enzokk

theological wrote: »

You can find out the export destinations of the UK pretty easily online and the value of these to the UK.

The benefits to liberalising trade are obvious. More UK goods going to other destinations, more goods coming into the UK at better prices, jobs being created and so on.

Why has this not been done before? The European Union forbids member states to negotiate their own free trade deal. Part of the sovereignty you must cede to sign-up. It's right there in the TFEU if you read the text.

The concessions required depend on the outcome of negotiations that haven't taken place yet but what I do know is that they won't be anywhere near as great as the concessions required in joining the EU. No trading bloc on the planet requires as much sovereignty to be handed over on joining as the EU does.

This is nothing more than just empty rhetoric. You offer no evidence other than others should do the investigations when you are the one making assertions about trade with countries the EU doesn't have trade deals with.

Now you are talking about concessions without being specific. It is futile to try and explain the reason how the EU works as I doubt you care or it will change your mind about the EU.

Bannasidhe

Enzokk wrote: »

Your assumptions are that the UK will always have goods to trade with countries that is wanted.

This whole 'The UK will trade' narrative falls down when asked what exactly will the UK trade?

Take this vague 'Goods' for example. What 'goods' are made in the UK that cannot be purchased elsewhere?

It seems to me a lot of this talk of trading goods harks back to pre-EU days when the UK did indeed have a strong manufacturing base but ignores the fact that as it's empire disintegrated - and along with that it's supply of both raw materials and tied markets - it's manufacturing industry began to disintegrate hence it's desire to join the EEC in the first place.

Empire 101 is raw materials are shipped back to the 'Motherland' where finished products are produced which are then sold across the empire. It's a circular trade system weighted heavily in favour of the 'conqueror'.

Post WWII this model was dead in the water for the UK - once India/Pakistan was gone coupled with Commonwealth countries signing trade deals with this new European bloc even Whitehall realised they were becoming isolated and if they wanted to continue trading 'goods' they needed to get on board.
That was 1961.
The finally joined in 1975 but that was mainly because France (specifically de Gaulle) blocked every attempt by the UK prior to that.

Since that time the UK is no longer a manufacturing powerhouse - this is not due to the EU, this is due to lack of the raw materials they once had free access to.
It's coal is gone. Steel is gone. Cotton is gone. Shipbuilding is gone. Car manufacture is no longer 'owned' by UK firms and what is left is running for the gap. What manufacturing is left is either small scale and will find tariffs a killer and/or reliant on cooperation with EU manufacturers... or multinationals who can and will relocate if it suits their purpose.

The UK is simply not the producer of goods for export it was pre-EU, but that is not the 'fault' of the EU. That is the 'fault' of losing it's empire. The fact that it's economy is still strong is due to the fact that the Whitehall mandarins back when the empire was dying recognised that they had to look to join a European trading partnership to survive.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

You can find out the export destinations of the UK pretty easily online and the value of these to the UK.

The benefits to liberalising trade are obvious. More UK goods going to other destinations, more goods coming into the UK at better prices, jobs being created and so on.

Why has this not been done before? The European Union forbids member states to negotiate their own free trade deal. Part of the sovereignty you must cede to sign-up. It's right there in the TFEU if you read the text.

The concessions required depend on the outcome of negotiations that haven't taken place yet but what I do know is that they won't be anywhere near as great as the concessions required in joining the EU. No trading bloc on the planet requires as much sovereignty to be handed over on joining as the EU does.

Don't ask other posters to research your argument for you please.

lawred2

theological wrote: »

You can find out the export destinations of the UK pretty easily online and the value of these to the UK.

The benefits to liberalising trade are obvious. More UK goods going to other destinations, more goods coming into the UK at better prices, jobs being created and so on.

Why has this not been done before? The European Union forbids member states to negotiate their own free trade deal. Part of the sovereignty you must cede to sign-up. It's right there in the TFEU if you read the text.

The concessions required depend on the outcome of negotiations that haven't taken place yet but what I do know is that they won't be anywhere near as great as the concessions required in joining the EU. No trading bloc on the planet requires as much sovereignty to be handed over on joining as the EU does.

so basically your argument amounts to 'yada yada yada' and somehow profit... just because

storker

theological wrote: »

You can find out the export destinations of the UK pretty easily online and the value of these to the UK.

That's not what you were asked for. The current information regarding UK exports includes those trade deals that the UK has from being a member of the EU, trade deals that will no longer apply and will need be renegotiated once the UK is no longer a member. Even if the UK manages to renegotiate those deals on equally-favourable terms, all it will have done maintained the status quo.

What you need to do to support your argument is to outline those trade deals that the UK will be able to make that will exceed what it currently has via the EU, AND make up for the future EU trade deals that the UK will miss out on when it's no longer a member, AND additional trade deals on top of all that. Otherwise, what's the point?

Who will such deals be struck with and how much will they be worth? In the absence of such information, your argument is really just saying "EU is bad, m'kay" and "It'll be alright on the night." Not terribly convincing.

Charles Babbage

theological wrote: »

You can find out the export destinations of the UK pretty easily online and the value of these to the UK.

Yes, we can. Of the top ten destinations for trade, eight of these are in Europe. Trade with Ireland from the UK is more than with India, Japan and South Korea put together.

How exactly will the UK benefit from making trade more difficult with their main trading partners in the hope of extra business with more distant ones (to whom they have little to sell in many cases).

The benefits to liberalising trade are obvious. More UK goods going to other destinations, more goods coming into the UK at better prices, jobs being created and so on.

The benefits are 'obvious' only if you ignore the reduction in goods and services going to EU destinations and the jobs lost because of this.

fash

theological wrote: »

You can find out the export destinations of the UK pretty easily online and the value of these to the UK.

I'm very aware- you appear not to be- I note you cannot be specific. By far the biggest and closest (relevant given gravity) market and partner is the EU. The world's greatest FTA with the US would bring less than a 0.5% increase in UK GDP - whereas the crappy nature of Brexit has knocked multiples and will knock orders of magnitude greater losses off the UK GDP.

The benefits to liberalising trade are obvious. More UK goods going to other destinations, more goods coming into the UK at better prices, jobs being created and so on.

another meaningless soundbite:
The EU has the greatest number of trade deals in history, and given that the EU is so large, these are ok favourable terms. The UK has only been able to roll over EU FTAs which are favourable to the other party- e.g. with mighty Faroe island. Why will any country allow the UK to export to them on advantageous terms- when the UK has already stated that it will unilaterally give the world the same terms? The US demands the UK follows US food standards, buys drugs at prices unilaterally set by the US, and gives up geographical indicators. India wants visas. Mercosur demands that the UK gives the Falklands to Argentina. Canada, Japan and Australia say they will wait until the UK concedes to the EU, and will give the UK less favourable terms.

The EU (and by extension the UK) already are amongst the most liberalised places on Earth - far more liberalised than the US for example. There is very limited scope to improve by further liberalisation.

theological wrote: »

Why has this not been done before? The European Union forbids member states to negotiate their own free trade deal. Part of the sovereignty you must cede to sign-up. It's right there in the TFEU if you read the text.

Again meaningless nonsense. What specifically has not been done? Given that the EU has deals with Japan, Australia, Mercosur, Canada - what deals have not been done? What terms have not been included.
Being specific for example, the reason why the EU didn't have a deal with India is that India demanded easier visa access (to the UK) and the UK refused. Is the UK now going to capitulate?

The concessions required depend on the outcome of negotiations that haven't taken place yet but what I do know is that they won't be anywhere near as great as the concessions required in joining the EU. No trading bloc on the planet requires as much sovereignty to be handed over on joining as the EU does.

The concessions will be greater and achieve far less- the UK is and will remain on its knees. It is becoming a vassal state- the only question is of whom.
No trading bloc in history has managed to get rid of borders, to integrate services, to grant the freedoms or to magnify the power of the member states the way the EU has done.

reslfj

Enzokk wrote: »

....
Here is a document with figures that will help you out. So now all you need to do is take the countries that has no deals with the EU and add the total together and compare it to the overall trade numbers and we can see how huge it is.

UK TRADE FIGURES

But even here there are some trickery, like how Switzerland and Norway isn't included in EU figures when they are very closely aligned by being in either the single market or customs union.
....

Norway is in the SM as an EEA country. Switzerland has agreements with the EU that has the same effect as it being in the SM.
But both countries are outside the EU's CU. For Norway at least it's mainly to protect its (very inefficient) farming business.

Talking of trickery. Of the Swiss import from the UK in 2017 66% was gold - financial gold moved from UK banks to Switzerland but accounted for in the trade statistics as UK export. (compare to eg page 9 on UK_TRADE_FIGURES doc linked above by Enzokk)
The only UK value added here is the small cost of the security transport from UK banks to the airport.

https://oec.world/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/che/gbr/show/2017/

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/913495460178006017?s=20

Lars

Professor Moriarty

reslfj wrote: »

Norway is in the SM as an EEA country. Switzerland has agreements with the EU that has the same effect as it being in the SM.
But both countries are outside the EU's CU. For Norway at least it's mainly to protect its (very inefficient) farming business.

Talking of trickery. Of the Swiss import from the UK in 2017 66% was gold - financial gold moved from UK banks to Switzerland but accounted for in the trade statistics as UK export. (compare to eg page 9 on UK_TRADE_FIGURES doc linked above by Enzokk)
The only UK added added here is the small cost of the security transport from UK banks to the airport.

https://oec.world/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/che/gbr/show/2017/

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/913495460178006017?s=20

Lars

Unbelievably, in 2014, Britain added drugs and prostitution to its stats on GDP. This change will have added nearly 1% to their GDP.

Leroy42

To be fair to theological, even the UK government cannot provide any actual evidence of the supposed benefits of brexit, (JRM stating that it may take 50 years to become clear!) so it is not unusual that the poster cannot provide any backup.

Of course, that should lead to them questioning the assertions they have made.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Posts re: UK General Election moved to here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058030141#

There will obviously be some overlap, but please try to keep things in their respective lanes!

ancapailldorcha

Don't discuss mod warnings on thread please. Post deleted.

demfad

The Court of appeal today granted the Electoral Commission permission to report the detailed findings of the Vote Leave investigation (guilty) where £650k was paid to Cambridge Analytica sibling AIQ (for Facebook Ads) via cut-out campaign BeLeave in last 7 days pre-referendum.

Bad news for those on the campaign committee (Tories and DUP listed) particularly for first two in bold who were most involved.

A particular allegation against Johnson from Ian Lucas who was on the DCMS commons committee was that JOhnson knew of teh law breaking (at latest) just after referendum but did not report and actually denied it.

Boris Johnson PM, Michael Gove , Dominic Raab, Foreign Secretary, Priti Patel Home Secretary, Dominic Cummings (Campaign Director), Matthew Elliott (chief executive), Steve Baker, Nigel Dodds, Iain Duncan Smith, Liam Fox, Chris Grayling, Daniel Hannan, Andrea Leadsom, Theresa Villiers, John Whittingdale

https://twitter.com/ElectoralCommUK/status/1194258776561508352

EDIT: Here we go: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-enforcement-work/investigations/investigation-vote-leave-ltd-mr-darren-grimes-beleave-and-veterans-britain

storker

Leroy42 wrote: »

To be fair to theological, even the UK government cannot provide any actual evidence of the supposed benefits of brexit, (JRM stating that it may take 50 years to become clear!) so it is not unusual that the poster cannot provide any backup.
.

Brexit could well turn out to be like the French Revolution. Two hundred years from now when someone asks if it was a good idea, the answer will be "It's too early to tell."

Sam Russell

storker wrote: »

Brexit could well turn out to be like the French Revolution. Two hundred years from now when someone asks if it was a good idea, the answer will be "It's too early to tell."

It was Chou en Lai who said that - he was China's first Premier Minister.

Alternative reason for the answer.

jm08

Leroy42 wrote: »

To be fair to theological, even the UK government cannot provide any actual evidence of the supposed benefits of brexit, (JRM stating that it may take 50 years to become clear!) so it is not unusual that the poster cannot provide any backup.

Of course, that should lead to them questioning the assertions they have made.

I think the plan is to trade services in exchange for food / agric. I heard one of them (think it was Redwood) saying that they would be looking to the undeveloped South American market and part of the trade would be agric. produce. They also have their eye on the US market for services.

listermint

jm08 wrote: »

I think the plan is to trade services in exchange for food / agric. I heard one of them (think it was Redwood) saying that they would be looking to the undeveloped South American market and part of the trade would be agric. produce. They also have their eye on the US market for services.

Pie in the sky stuff. They can do all this inside the EU.

They'll never replace that market access.

Never.

CelticRambler

jm08 wrote: »

They also have their eye on the US market for services.

After so many years enjoying the Four Freedoms in the increasingly liberalised EU, the challenges of doing business across state lines in the US might come as a bit of a shock to them! :P

theological

fash wrote: »

I'm very aware- you appear not to be- I note you cannot be specific. By far the biggest and closest (relevant given gravity) market and partner is the EU. The world's greatest FTA with the US would bring less than a 0.5% increase in UK GDP - whereas the crappy nature of Brexit has knocked multiples and will knock orders of magnitude greater losses off the UK GDP.

Specific about what? The outcome of trade negotiations that haven't happened yet?

I agree, I can't be specific about things that haven't happened. More importantly, neither can you. We're not Nostradamus.

In the scenario that neither of us have mystical powers, the best thing we can do is look to precedent and look to other countries even countries that are smaller that have managed to build successful economies outside of the EU.

I agree with you that the UK needs a good FTA with the EU, the same is also true the other way around.

fash wrote: »

The EU has the greatest number of trade deals in history, and given that the EU is so large, these are ok favourable terms. The UK has only been able to roll over EU FTAs which are favourable to the other party- e.g. with mighty Faroe island. Why will any country allow the UK to export to them on advantageous terms- when the UK has already stated that it will unilaterally give the world the same terms? The US demands the UK follows US food standards, buys drugs at prices unilaterally set by the US, and gives up geographical indicators. India wants visas. Mercosur demands that the UK gives the Falklands to Argentina. Canada, Japan and Australia say they will wait until the UK concedes to the EU, and will give the UK less favourable terms.

This is the assumption that I don't agree with you on. There is no good reason as to why the UK cannot negotiate good deals with other countries. Other smaller countries have done so.

I also don't agree with what you've said about FTA's that the UK has rolled over being only beneficial to other countries. That's a matter of your opinion and not a matter of fact.

You are trying to be Nostradamus without any good basis for believing that the UK cannot succeed in building a new trade policy.

fash wrote: »

The EU (and by extension the UK) already are amongst the most

liberalised places on Earth - far more liberalised than the US for example. There is very limited scope to improve by further liberalisation.

I disagree. The EU is also one of the most protectionist places on Earth for trade. Within its borders sure, it's pretty open. Outside I don't think so.

fash wrote: »

Again meaningless nonsense. What specifically has not been done? Given that the EU has deals with Japan, Australia, Mercosur, Canada - what deals have not been done? What terms have not been included.
Being specific for example, the reason why the EU didn't have a deal with India is that India demanded easier visa access (to the UK) and the UK refused. Is the UK now going to capitulate?

You've misread my post. I replied to your point "Why hasn't this been done before?" the answer is because the EU forbids individual member states from negotiating trade deals.

There are obviously more countries that the UK will want to negotiate free trade with. The US is one of the first that should be pursued. The first priority should be to go through countries where the UK is already doing a lot of trade with outside the EU and to explore expanding trade both in terms of goods and services.

fash wrote: »

The concessions will be greater and achieve far less- the UK is and will remain on its knees. It is becoming a vassal state- the only question is of whom.
No trading bloc in history has managed to get rid of borders, to integrate services, to grant the freedoms or to magnify the power of the member states the way the EU has done.

Totally disagree with this conclusion. The EU requires much more control to be handed over for membership than any other trading bloc on earth today. Control of fishing waters, agricultural policy, unlimited migration, handing over complete control over trade policy amongst other things.

Can you please provide any examples of a FTA that requires more control than this to be handed over?

fash

listermint wrote: »

Pie in the sky stuff. They can do all this inside the EU.

They'll never replace that market access.

Never.

Presumably this means Mercosur. What will they do in relation to Las Malvinas/Falklands - the Argentine claim to which is expressly referred to in the Mercosur treaties?
What services? What language? Spanish/Portuguese or English?
Will they have better access than the existing access enjoyed by Spain/Portugal ?

Spanish Eyes

Would I be totally naive in thinking that there are forces supporting Brexit that will/may hope for a smooth transition from EU to some Trade Agreements? Maybe, but qui bono.

But those who enter into Trade Agreements will be calling the shots surely to a relative minnow on the World Stage like the UK. Hubris again huh.

Anyway, the quickest Trade Agreement took how long or short I wonder. I'm referring to a non EU country to another non EU country. I know about Canada and that was with EU, seven years was it?. Sorry for being lazy, but some might know.

theological

listermint wrote: »

Pie in the sky stuff. They can do all this inside the EU.

They'll never replace that market access.

Never.

There are more reasons than trade alone for wanting to leave the EU.

The belief that you have about the UK not being able to "replace market access" is absurd. Firstly, nobody is arguing for no trade with the EU going forward. No matter what scenario there will be continued trade with the EU. Secondly, how big of a deficit in EU trade post-Brexit do you think there'll be such that the UK in time immemorial won't be able to develop in terms of trade.

Posts like this are baseless and irrational rhetoric. Please provide solid reasons as to why you believe things like this.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

Specific about what? The outcome of trade negotiations that haven't happened yet?

In the scenario that neither of us have mystical powers, the best thing we can do is look to precedent and look to other countries even countries that are smaller that have managed to build successful economies outside of the EU.

This is the assumption that I don't agree with you on. There is no good reason as to why the UK cannot negotiate good deals with other countries. Other smaller countries have done so.

Go on then: give us examples of these small countries that have built successful economies outside of the EU.

In the meantime, you don't have to be Nostradamus to examine what will be required to replace what is being lost, and how likely it is that any deal can achieve what's required. Just because you believe in the concept of a trade deal doesn't mean the other parties want anything you have to trade.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

There are more reasons than trade alone for wanting to leave the EU.

What are they?

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

Go on then: give us examples of these small countries that have built successful economies outside of the EU.

In the meantime, you don't have to be Nostradamus to examine what will be required to replace what is being lost, and how likely it is that any deal can achieve what's required. Just because you believe in the concept of a trade deal doesn't mean the other parties want anything you have to trade.

CelticRambler wrote: »

What are they?

Please read my recent posts. I've already answered these questions.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

The belief that you have about the UK not being able to "replace market access" is absurd. Firstly, nobody is arguing for no trade with the EU going forward. No matter what scenario there will be continued trade with the EU.

Of course there will. And the UK will have to comply 100% with every EU regulation in order to sell into the EU (as does every other non-EU country). Are you happy for the UK to be obliged to follow rules over which they have no control - in contrast the current situation where they have directy input into the final shape of each and every regulation?

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

Please read my recent posts. I've already answered these questions.

Nope. You haven't answered a single one. You keep trying to side-step the questions by saying it's your opinion and you can't predict the future.

Name three small countries that have demonstrated significant economic success outside of the EU.

ancapailldorcha

theological wrote: »

Please read my recent posts. I've already answered these questions.

No, you haven't. You've been warned about this already today. It's up to you to substantiate your claims.

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

Of course there will. And the UK will have to comply 100% with every EU regulation in order to sell into the EU (as does every other non-EU country). Are you happy for the UK to be obliged to follow rules over which they have no control - in contrast the current situation where they have directy input into the final shape of each and every regulation?

Last post for today:

Obviously if I sell things into the EU I will have to comply with EU standards.

If I sell things into the US I will have to comply with US standards.

The point of Brexit isn't to seek to control legislation in other countries, it's to increase control over what happens in the UK.

Edit: I did answer these questions in previous posts. I gave examples of other countries, and explained reasons why I think the UK leaving the EU is a good decision outside of trade policy. It's untruthful to say otherwise.