Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria · 17-11-2017 12:24PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Except that it isn't. It's also about paying as little to the EU post-Brexit as possible for posterity's sake which is important given that the Chuka Umunna's amendment to the Brexit date bull to secure this extra funding has just been defeated:

https://twitter.com/labourwhips/status/829400745623617537

And then there's the fact that you never go deeper than this? What's the sweet spot between conceding ground to Brussels and trade freedom in your opinion? Finally, you never go into detail as to how EU membership has restricted trade to the rest of the world, a statement which sharply juxtaposes the fact that over half of Britain's trade is with non-EU members. How much room is there to liberalise trade, exactly? Surely with the election of Emmanuel Macron, this would be an ideal time for the British government to push the EU in a new global trade position? But then, this would do nothing for the Paleosceptics who want out at all costs.

Good morning!

I've not really got a lot to say on Chuka Umuna's amendment apart from to say that the EU Withdrawal Bill isn't the right place for it. The bill is intended to give a legal framework for the process of withdrawing, not the exact step by step implementation. There will be other pieces of legislation for this.

EDIT: Just realised this amendment was for the Article 50 legislation in February, in which case it would have been an even worse place for it than the EU Withdrawal Bill!

On liberalising trade. I don't know why you are having difficulty understanding my position. My point isn't that the UK can't trade with the wider world. Of course it can. The EU prevents the UK signing free trade agreements for itself that could liberalise the terms on which that trade is conducted. Liberalising the terms of this trade would give British businesses better access into the markets of other countries, creating new opportunities for trade, leading to new jobs and new trade in Britain.

My point isn't that the EU prevents trade outside the EU full stop, it is that it prevents Britain being able to liberalise that trade with better terms.

As for your point about "giving as little as possible" to the EU. In a sense you're right. The UK isn't interested in giving more money to the EU than it needs to. As a taxpayer I'm happy this is the Government's approach. There is also a line where the money argument becomes a bad deal. I've got a figure that I'm broadly speaking happy with that is a lot more liberal than some other Brexiteers but I agree with the principle that the UK shouldn't spend any more than it has to.

It is better for the UK to be able to steer its own direction on trade. Different countries have different interests, whereas if the UK is able to move forward with trade deals in its own interests without being delayed or hampered by having to consider 27 other countries I think that's the better outcome.

As for how much room is there to liberalise trade. Removing tariff and non-tariff barriers on goods and services with the United States and China in particular would be hugely beneficial to the economy. That's before we consider other partners. Your claim that there isn't much room for liberalisation of trade terms with other countries when we are trading with them on WTO most favourable nation terms doesn't quite make sense. In fact any liberalisation beyond WTO terms even if small would increase opportunities for outputs to these markets. Opportunities for a deal between the US and the UK in respect to financial services in particular would be good for both the City and Wall Street.

I don't think Emmanuel Macron is the saviour of the EU. The EU would need substantial reform if I was going to advocate rejoining it. The UK is leaving the EU, and there's no room for a u-turn on that matter, so the argument for pushing Macron in X, Y or Z direction is too late. The European Communities Act has been withdrawn in a vote in parliament. Therefore the current conversation is about how to Brexit, not about if the UK should. That has been settled.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Water John · 17-11-2017 12:27PM

We've waited long enough for the UK to spell out their mystery solution on the border question. Varadkar lays it on the line:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/17/irish-pm-brexit-backing-politicians-did-not-think-things-through

I really think, we have listened to enough bul****t.

Nody · 17-11-2017 12:29PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Exactly. The Tories' floundering and flailing about as they sink is just going to harden attitudes within the EU collectively and individually. Only yesterday, there was yet another article in the Torygraph blaming Ireland for impeding progress. Little Englander hubris is showing its true colours.

Well to be fair Leo did do the following:

Leo Varadkar dismissed Ms May’s claim that negotiations on the future land border are “almost there” as “wishful thinking”, at a breakfast meeting.

Instead, he told the UK prime minister that she must set out detailed proposals that can form part of the conclusions of the crunch December EU summit.

Without that reassurance, Ireland would block any attempt to move the negotiations onto future trade and a transitional period to cushion Brexit – the Holy Grail for the UK.

swampgas · 17-11-2017 12:51PM

Also from the Guardian, a report that the Dutch are looking at preparations to deal with a chaotic no-deal Brexit:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/16/brexit-netherlands-told-to-prepare-for-a-no-deal-chaos-scenario

Unlike the other EU-27 countries we have the additional headache of the threats to the GFA. Ireland has a difficult line to tread between pushing for no hard border with NI (and holding off on preparing border posts), and preparing for chaotic Brexit where we suddenly find ourselves with an EU border with the 3rd country that is the UK (i.e. building border infrastructure in advance). It may be that holding the UK's feet to the fire by threatening to block any trade deal is the only way the get the UK to take the NI issue seriously.

However I don't see any solution emerging any time soon - I think a hard chaotic Brexit is the most likely scenario, and one (unfortunately) for which we should be making serious contingency plans.

ancapailldorcha · 17-11-2017 12:53PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've not really got a lot to say on Chuka Umuna's amendment apart from to say that the EU Withdrawal Bill isn't the right place for it. The bill is intended to give a legal framework for the process of withdrawing, not the exact step by step implementation. There will be other pieces of legislation for this.

I think it's the perfect place given that the pledge was on the side of a big, red bus driving two senior government figures around.

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point isn't that the EU prevents trade outside the EU full stop, it is that it prevents Britain being able to liberalise that trade with better terms.

And again you've dodged the question. Repeating this ad nauseam isn't helping.

solodeogloria · 17-11-2017 12:59PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think it's the perfect place given that the pledge was on the side of a big, red bus driving two senior government figures around.

And again you've dodged the question. Repeating this ad nauseam isn't helping.

Good morning!

You asked me about how the EU restricts trade to the rest of the world. I answered you. It doesn't permit the UK to pursue trade deals by itself. I also pointed out the scope for how trade could be expanded from WTO most favourable nation terms. Removing tariff and non-tariff barriers on goods and services through a negotiated free trade agreement. I also mentioned financial services and the US.

If I misunderstood your question please restate what you asked more clearly.

On the purpose of the withdrawal bill - I disagree with you and I explained why.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk · 17-11-2017 01:02PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

On liberalising trade. I don't know why you are having difficulty understanding my position. My point isn't that the UK can't trade with the wider world. Of course it can. The EU prevents the UK signing free trade agreements for itself that could liberalise the terms on which that trade is conducted. Liberalising the terms of this trade would give British businesses better access into the markets of other countries, creating new opportunities for trade, leading to new jobs and new trade in Britain.

My point isn't that the EU prevents trade outside the EU full stop, it is that it prevents Britain being able to liberalise that trade with better terms.

My guess is you, or anyone, will not be able to point to a trade deal that the UK currently has as being part of the EU that negatively impacts the UK compared to a deal that they have negotiated themselves. I would be interested to know how the UK can have better trade terms than they currently have as part of the EU.

Saying that the UK can get better trade deals if they go about it alone doesn't mean it will happen. How many people must tell the UK that it loses out on a strong negotiation position as part of the EU by going at it alone? But yet people persist to think that better terms will be gotten by doing their own trade deals.

swampgas · 17-11-2017 01:08PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

You asked me about how the EU restricts trade to the rest of the world. I answered you. It doesn't permit the UK to pursue trade deals by itself. I also pointed out the scope for how trade could be expanded from WTO most favourable nation terms. Removing tariff and non-tariff barriers on goods and services through a negotiated free trade agreement. I also mentioned financial services and the US.

The only way I can see for the UK to get deals that it cannot get as part of the EU involves a race to the bottom in terms of regulations and safety standards.

Only by deviating from (and dropping) EU regulation and standards can the UK hope to get significant deals with other countries. That will make it impossible to have any kind of frictionless border with Ireland or the rest of the EU.

And I think it's very bad for the people of the UK as a whole to have their health and safety thrown under a bus just to get a few trade deals that in all likelihood won't make up from what is lost in trade with the EU.

solodeogloria · 17-11-2017 01:10PM

Enzokk wrote: »

My guess is you, or anyone, will not be able to point to a trade deal that the UK currently has as being part of the EU that negatively impacts the UK compared to a deal that they have negotiated themselves. I would be interested to know how the UK can have better trade terms than they currently have as part of the EU.

Saying that the UK can get better trade deals if they go about it alone doesn't mean it will happen. How many people must tell the UK that it loses out on a strong negotiation position as part of the EU by going at it alone? But yet people persist to think that better terms will be gotten by doing their own trade deals.

Good afternoon!

I've not said this. Please read my posts carefully.

No current deal is an issue. The point is that by taking control of trade policy the UK will be able to sign new trade deals to liberalise trade with trade partners which are not under an EU FTA.

That was very clear.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk · 17-11-2017 01:16PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've not said this. Please read my posts carefully.

No current deal is an issue. The point is that by taking control of trade policy the UK will be able to sign new trade deals to liberalise trade with trade partners which are not under an EU FTA.

That was very clear.

So let me get this straight. The UK always had control to have EU immigrants leave the country if they didn't contribute to the state in 6 months, i.e. control of borders. The UK always had control of their laws and the parliament was always sovereign.

And now the UK won't get better trade terms than they currently enjoy. They may get worse trade terms but the control to get a worse deal is what has people up in arms.

It seems the longer the malarkey goes on for the worse the reasons for leaving the EU becomes.

demfad · 17-11-2017 01:17PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!
On liberalising trade. I don't know why you are having difficulty understanding my position. My point isn't that the UK can't trade with the wider world. Of course it can. The EU prevents the UK signing free trade agreements for itself that could liberalise the terms on which that trade is conducted. Liberalising the terms of this trade would give British businesses better access into the markets of other countries, creating new opportunities for trade, leading to new jobs and new trade in Britain.

More substantiated:

A. On iliberalising trade. I don't know why you are having difficulty understanding my position. My point isn't that the UK can't trade freely with the EU. Of course it can, it's in the single market. The EU prevents the UK from erecting trade and non-trade barriers with the rest of the EU that could iliberalise the terms on which that trade is conducted. Illiberalising the terms of this trade would give British businesses worse access into the markets of other EU countries, killing new opportunities for trade, leading to massive job and trade losses in Britain. Ofcourse trading with the wider world will be greatly illiberalised under WTO rules with no Gatt, FTAs, mulitlateral or unilateral deals but dont worry because

B. We are now in a position to liberalise trade with the rest of the world for the sole reason that action A. has made us the most illiberal trading country on the planet (no exaggeration). From this position of historical weakness we are in no position to regain any of the lost trade by negotiation and our fantasy of a free trade world remains that. Our weakness and inevitable green economics means that globalised trade recedes in current form. There would have been opportunities for globalised services but our once mighty services sector has been decimated by Brexit.

But....we had fun rationalising the irrational Brexit.

solodeogloria · 17-11-2017 01:25PM

Enzokk wrote: »

So let me get this straight. The UK always had control to have EU immigrants leave the country if they didn't contribute to the state in 6 months, i.e. control of borders. The UK always had control of their laws and the parliament was always sovereign.

And now the UK won't get better trade terms than they currently enjoy. They may get worse trade terms but the control to get a worse deal is what has people up in arms.

It seems the longer the malarkey goes on for the worse the reasons for leaving the EU becomes.

Good afternoon!

I've already replied on this thread saying why those controls on migration are insufficient.

I've explained to you that I'm both interested in maintaining as much trade with the EU as possible whilst liberalising trade elsewhere. I've explained why at length on this thread. I've explained why this would lead to more trade and more jobs.

I'm really happy to say we disagree. But there's no point repeating points I've already responded to. There's also no point saying I've not explained by position either.

It gives the impression that this thread is an echo chamber.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha · 17-11-2017 01:29PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

You asked me about how the EU restricts trade to the rest of the world. I answered you. It doesn't permit the UK to pursue trade deals by itself. I also pointed out the scope for how trade could be expanded from WTO most favourable nation terms. Removing tariff and non-tariff barriers on goods and services through a negotiated free trade agreement. I also mentioned financial services and the US.

Because most British trade is already with the world outside the EU. How much more is going to develop, exactly? The lie that the whole world is queueing up for trade deals has already been exposed.

ambro25 · 17-11-2017 01:30PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've already replied on this thread saying why those controls on migration are insufficient.

I've explained to you that I'm both interested in maintaining as much trade with the EU as possible whilst liberalising trade elsewhere. I've explained why at length on this thread. I've explained why this would lead to more trade and more jobs.

I'm really happy to say we disagree. But there's no point repeating points I've already responded to. There's also no point saying I've not explained by position either.

It gives the impression that this thread is an echo chamber.

Are you taking double-talk and hypocrisy lessons from the same place as David Davis?

solodeogloria wrote: »

No current deal is an issue. The point is that by taking control of trade policy the UK will be able to sign new trade deals to liberalise trade with trade partners which are not under an EU FTA.

The US, China and India, at a guess?

You should broaden your news and analysis -reading circle (friendly suggestion to improve your -apparent- grasp of geopolitics, and help put a bit more flesh on the bones of your argument should you -finally- be so minded).

See here -EDIT- and here.

Vronsky · 17-11-2017 01:35PM

swampgas wrote: »

Also from the Guardian, a report that the Dutch are looking at preparations to deal with a chaotic no-deal Brexit:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/16/brexit-netherlands-told-to-prepare-for-a-no-deal-chaos-scenario

Unlike the other EU-27 countries we have the additional headache of the threats to the GFA. Ireland has a difficult line to tread between pushing for no hard border with NI (and holding off on preparing border posts), and preparing for chaotic Brexit where we suddenly find ourselves with an EU border with the 3rd country that is the UK (i.e. building border infrastructure in advance). It may be that holding the UK's feet to the fire by threatening to block any trade deal is the only way the get the UK to take the NI issue seriously.

However I don't see any solution emerging any time soon - I think a hard chaotic Brexit is the most likely scenario, and one (unfortunately) for which we should be making serious contingency plans.

The deal has to be completed by the end of the summer, in order for it to be ratified by every Parliament that needs to. There will be a 6 month period for every country to prepare for the outcome of the negotiation.

Not a lot of time to get infrastructure in place granted, but it won't be a case of talks failing and the UK ends out in the morning either.

Enzokk · 17-11-2017 01:38PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've already replied on this thread saying why those controls on migration are insufficient.

I've explained to you that I'm both interested in maintaining as much trade with the EU as possible whilst liberalising trade elsewhere. I've explained why at length on this thread. I've explained why this would lead to more trade and more jobs.

I'm really happy to say we disagree. But there's no point repeating points I've already responded to. There's also no point saying I've not explained by position either.

It gives the impression that this thread is an echo chamber.

I would question how the UK, and you, would know that those immigration restrictions are insufficient when they have never had any interest in applying them, but my guess is the real answer is closer to I don't care about control of immigration, I just want to leave the EU.

On trade your posts seem to indicate that you think the UK is losing out on trade as they don't have control over the trade negotiations.

My point isn't that the EU prevents trade outside the EU full stop, it is that it prevents Britain being able to liberalise that trade with better terms.

So we know the UK won't have better terms with their current trade partners and may just in fact have worse terms. So the question is will those "better" trade terms that the UK will be able to negotiate with the countries that the EU do not have a agreement at the moment make up for the "lost" trade by losing the 50 odd deals they currently enjoy.

solodeogloria · 17-11-2017 01:46PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Because most British trade is already with the world outside the EU. How much more is going to develop, exactly? The lie that the whole world is queueing up for trade deals has already been exposed.

Good morning!

You're missing the point again. If the UK exports a lot to the wider world today on WTO terms - liberalising trade and dropping tariffs will give better opportunities to trade more. There's plenty of scope to trade more with big markets like the US or China.

The question isn't how much more scope is there? In two markets of 1.3bn lots! More than a market of 430 odd million as important as that is. That's before we consider rapidly expanding developing markets.

My question to you is why can't you see that the opportunities are huge?

Also - why do you think that just because the UK exports lots outside of the EU today that it can't export more with better terms?

The assumptions that you hold might be the reason why you don't understand. I don't understand why you've got such a low view of the UK's abilities as a country.

The trade department are currently in working groups with 21 countries all interested in trade with Britain.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph · 17-11-2017 01:49PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I've not said this. Please read my posts carefully.

No current deal is an issue. The point is that by taking control of trade policy the UK will be able to sign new trade deals to liberalise trade with trade partners which are not under an EU FTA.

That was very clear.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You know the UK will be the junior party in trade deals with the US and China (the latter has very few trade deals at all by the way)?

You make out like the UK gets to call the shots in new trade deals but don't mention anything about what the UK gives in return.

You have already conceded that for this to work the UK needs to be able to export its services but FTAs rarely cover these. You expect the world's countries to start incorporating services into FTAs for the UK's benefit?

ancapailldorcha · 17-11-2017 02:00PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

You're missing the point again. If the UK exports a lot to the wider world today on WTO terms - liberalising trade and dropping tariffs will give better opportunities to trade more. There's plenty of scope to trade more with big markets like the US or China.

The question isn't how much more scope is there? In two markets of 1.3bn lots! More than a market of 430 odd million as important as that is. That's before we consider rapidly expanding developing markets.

My question to you is why can't you see that the opportunities are huge?

Also - why do you think that just because the UK exports lots outside of the EU today that it can't export more with better terms?

The trade department are currently in working groups with 21 countries all interested in trade with Britain.

You're just repeating yourself again. Have you any sort of source to back this up at all if you're so certain?

What you don't seem to understand is leverage in trade negotiations. The US will likely insist on privileged access to the NHS that Leave voters wanted to increase funding for, not dismantle. This is why it's better to stay in the EU rather than leave, there is more clout with the prize of access to the single market to entice prospective partners.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The assumptions that you hold might be the reason why you don't understand. I don't understand why you've got such a low view of the UK's abilities as a country.

This is just pathetic to be honest. I said nothing of the sort.

ancapailldorcha · 17-11-2017 02:12PM

An analysis from Ian James Parsley about David Davis' attitude to the single market:

https://twitter.com/ianjamesparsley/status/931259341965025281

Full thread:

This evening in Germany, David Davis has demonstrated a frankly humiliating misunderstanding of even the basics of the EU...
Firstly, even if somehow Angela Merkel were scared that the German economy could be crippled by, er, not being able to export freely to a smaller country like the UK, she cannot intervene to offer the UK a special deal. No one can.
Let us repeat: the EU is the Single Market and the Single Market is the EU. Let us also repeat: the Single Market is a market of rules. This is the fundamental point David Davis has still failed to grasp.
For that reason, participation in the Single Market by any non-EU State is determined by which rules that State is willing to adopt. And that the end of it. (Norway adopts nearly all of them, for example; Moldova just a few.)
David Davis therefore still hasn’t grasped that this negotiation is not “We give a bit, you give a bit”.
It is essentially “Here are the rules of the Single Market; tell us which ones you no longer wish to apply and that will determine your level of participation in it.”
This really should be obvious. How otherwise could a 27/28-member bloc function if it did not have rules? And those rules cannot be amended other than with the support of the whole bloc.
This is all to leave quite aside that David Davis vastly overstates the UK’s economic importance. Germany sells many multiples more cars in China and the US, for example. That is a basic matter of fact.
UK really should have worked out by now, more than halfway between Referendum Day and Brexit Day, that this whole “They’ll bend to our will” stuff is a myth. It can’t happen - and wouldn’t, even if it could.
And for any UK Minister to go anywhere else and tell the locals not to put “politics before prosperity” is, right now, to set a new world record in gross hypocrisy. For that is precisely and embarrassingly what the UK alone is doing with #Brexit.
David Davis’ call for co-operation in the interests of mutual prosperity was met with an obvious first question from a German journalist...
“If that is what you want, why are you leaving?”

This is why I'm pessimistic. There isn't a shred of evidence whatsoever that this is going well. We have a government in thrall to extreme Brexiteers who's sole motivation for leaving the EU is a hatred of it, nothing more than that. There's plenty of capacious talk about opportunities but nobody seems to have any sign whatsoever that this is proceeding in any sort of capacity, even an informal one.

solodeogloria · 17-11-2017 02:14PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're just repeating yourself again. Have you any sort of source to back this up at all if you're so certain?

What you don't seem to understand is leverage in trade negotiations. The US will likely insist on privileged access to the NHS that Leave voters wanted to increase funding for, not dismantle. This is why it's better to stay in the EU rather than leave, there is more clout with the prize of access to the single market to entice prospective partners.

This is just pathetic to be honest. I said nothing of the sort.

Good afternoon!

I've discussed this with you before.

Why are you so afraid of America? The NHS already has private contracts and I don't see why these shouldn't be opened to American operators. Bidding will happen and the health service will decide who is the best bidder. I'd personally be happy with Anglo-American cooperation improving. I don't consider them any more negatively than the EU.

Other much smaller countries have FTA's with China - Switzerland and Iceland. Smaller countries have FTA's with the United States. There is zero reason why the UK won't be able to improve access if it wants to. Why do you think the UK can't? Again, seems like a low view without justification.

You say there's more clout in the single market and you've claimed that I've not backed up my claims despite providing figures in several points in this thread. If membership of the single market and customs union blocks improved trading terms with the rest of the world, I'd confidently say better off out with a reduced FTA. The US and China together are markets of 1.3 billion. The EU is 430mn - this is important, but not at the expense of expansion elsewhere.

I'm not the only one who needs to answer the questions put to me. You need to be willing to do this too.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

jobbridge4life · 17-11-2017 02:17PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is why I'm pessimistic. There isn't a shred of evidence whatsoever that this is going well. We have a government in thrall to extreme Brexiteers who's sole motivation for leaving the EU is a hatred of it, nothing more than that. There's plenty of capacious talk about opportunities but nobody seems to have any sign whatsoever that this is proceeding in any sort of capacity, even an informal one.

Quite so, simplu put there is an enormous, insurmountable gap between what Brexiters want and reality.

The British position has always really just been elaboration of Boris's 'we can have our cake and eat it too'. Only they are going to discover that not only can't they eat the cake, it doesn't even belong to them.

LeinsterDub · 17-11-2017 02:19PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Other much smaller countries have FTA's with China - Switzerland and Iceland. Smaller countries have FTA's with the United States. There is zero reason why the UK won't be able to improve access if it wants to. Why do you think the UK can't? Again, seems like a low view without justification.

You have to remember that the UK want a free trade agreement with the EU first and foremost. Let's assume they get one and it includes farming. This now means a free trade agreements on farming with the US is impossible as their standards don't meet ours

ancapailldorcha · 17-11-2017 02:20PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Other much smaller countries have FTA's with China - Switzerland and Iceland. Smaller countries have FTA's with the United States. There is zero reason why the UK won't be able to improve access if it wants to. Why do you think the UK can't? Again, seems like a low view without justification.

Iceland's FTA with China allows it to sell excess fish. That's it. China definitely got the better end of that deal.

solodeogloria wrote: »

You say there's more clout in the single market and you've claimed that I've not backed up my claims despite providing figures in several points in this thread. If membership of the single market and customs union blocks improved trading terms with the rest of the world, I'd confidently say better off out with a reduced FTA. The US and China together are markets of 1.3 billion. The EU is 430mn - this is important, but not at the expense of expansion elsewhere.

You've provided figures but not sources for them. The last figure I saw for EU trade was 44%. Your figures above suggest a much lower percentage. Can you provide a source please?

Anyway, several prominent Leave campaigners were all for single market membership:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY

Professor Moriarty · 17-11-2017 02:25PM

Nody wrote: »

Well to be fair Leo did do the following:

It's chicken and egg. Britain thinks Ireland is blocking trade agreements and Ireland thinks Britain is disregarding border considerations.

However, the fact remains that it is Britain which has decided to leave. It's not Ireland's responsibility to facilitate that leaving to the detriment of Ireland's interests.

solodeogloria · 17-11-2017 02:29PM

Good afternoon!

ancapailldorcha: if I hadn't been through all of these points before with reference to the ONS figures and Full Fact on the sizes of markets you might have some justification to say I have no references for this. I'm sure you can add the US and Chinese populations together yourself using a calculator.

On the other hand I've asked you questions and I don't get answers. This isn't a one way conversation.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha · 17-11-2017 02:33PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

On the other hand I've asked you questions and I don't get answers. This isn't a one way conversation.

I have answered your questions. I pointed out the problem with your Iceland example for one thing.

You asked me why I was afraid of America. This is a disingenuous strawman that I have no interest in indulging.

solodeogloria · 17-11-2017 03:01PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I have answered your questions. I pointed out the problem with your Iceland example for one thing.

You asked me why I was afraid of America. This is a disingenuous strawman that I have no interest in indulging.

Good afternoon!

It seemed a reasonable question given what you said about the NHS. Why are you any more worried about American business involvement in the NHS than European and British business involvement in the NHS? Contracts already exist. Do you object to American involvement in public private partnerships generally?

There are other questions in the posts before that you've not answered. Again, it's reasonable that if I am going to respond to your questions that you should respond to mine.

Edit: On the 44% question. You've misunderstood my point. I was speaking of the markets in terms of population. At present China and the US make up £100bn of trade, and the EU makes up £230bn. My point is that given the size of the markets by population (430mn EU, 1.3bn US & China) there's definitely scope to expand the £100bn. You can find these figures in the ONS statistics for trade which I've already posted before on this thread.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph · 17-11-2017 03:13PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I've discussed this with you before.

Why are you so afraid of America? The NHS already has private contracts and I don't see why these shouldn't be opened to American operators. Bidding will happen and the health service will decide who is the best bidder. I'd personally be happy with Anglo-American cooperation improving. I don't consider them any more negatively than the EU.

Other much smaller countries have FTA's with China - Switzerland and Iceland. Smaller countries have FTA's with the United States. There is zero reason why the UK won't be able to improve access if it wants to. Why do you think the UK can't? Again, seems like a low view without justification.

You say there's more clout in the single market and you've claimed that I've not backed up my claims despite providing figures in several points in this thread. If membership of the single market and customs union blocks improved trading terms with the rest of the world, I'd confidently say better off out with a reduced FTA. The US and China together are markets of 1.3 billion. The EU is 430mn - this is important, but not at the expense of expansion elsewhere.

I'm not the only one who needs to answer the questions put to me. You need to be willing to do this too.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The EU is also just 25 miles away to the UK's right and 0 miles away to the left. There's a reason trade between neighbouring countries is always higher than trade between countries separated by thousands of miles and several time zones!

demfad · 17-11-2017 03:21PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

You're missing the point again. If the UK exports a lot to the wider world today on WTO terms -

Youre missing the point:

The UK does barely any trade under WTO terms:

This is show they trade

Agreements in place

Partly in place

Being updated

Negotiations started/in progress

It is possible to trade under pure WTO rules but it is massively cumbersome with red tape and ambiguity. But perhaps you can enlighten us as to who the UK will magic these problems away?

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments