Jim2007 wrote: » Do you realize that the Canada-EU agreement requires EU agreement for Canada to give as good a deal to the UK? Do you understand that deals with both the US and Canada are not regional deals as set out under WTO rules and must meet the full approval process. The only ‘easy ones’ as you call them are WTO regional deals as they have very little third party requirements. And in the case of the UK that would be Europe and that is not going so well. In fact the only regional deal they have on the cards right now is Switzerland.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » A trade deal takes very little time to negotiate if it's only for a limited number of items and it is mutually beneficial. If we say to Israel, "Sign this agreement and the tariffs on your citrus fruit will be reduced to zero," how long will they need to pick up a pen?
cml387 wrote: » Er, no. Have you?
FrancieBrady wrote: » It's going ahead according to her today.
Deleted User wrote: » Very rarely are these last minute negotiations bound by such a fixed deadline requiring national parliamentary approvals or whatever. Usually if something isn't agreed at one summit it just drags on until the next.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » You forget that we have quotas on our WTO schedules to help protect our own farming industry and quotas can also be written into trade deals. Many of the imported foodstuffs aren't grown in the UK anyway so reducing tariffs on oranges and bananas, for example, will not affect our own farms
prawnsambo wrote: » Well I haven't. Please provide an example.
10000maniacs wrote: » No I didn't forget anything. As the UK will have no trade deals with anyone when they leave, there will be no quotas on any WTO trade deals as there will be no trade deals until the UK negotiates trade deals. Also, I am clearly not advocating Boris Johnsons suggestion if you read my post. However it is a possible option.
All MED countries may export oranges to the EU within the respective quotas tariff free since 1993. Also, orange exports enter the EU at preferential entry prices for Morocco and Israel since December 1995 ...
ThePanjandrum wrote: » Google it, there are plenty of examples, for instance this one Costs and Benefits of Stopping the Clock - How Airlines Profit from Changes in the EU ETS From 2012 flights to and from EU airports have been included in the EU emissions trading system (ETS). In November 2012 the Commission decided to ‘stop the clock’ and exempt emissions from intercontinental flights. Because airlines will have anticipated incurring costs on these routes and will have raised fares or levied surcharges to cover them, the exemption provides them with a windfall profit. This report estimates the windfall to be between EUR 700 and 1,400 million. EU airlines are expected to reap the largest share of the windfall (55%), followed by US airlines (13%). You notice that the clock was stopped in 2012. It hasn't restarted yet.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » The existing EU quotas have been split with the UK. The UK has quotas included in the schedules.
“We are aware of media reports suggesting the possibility of a bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union 27 countries about splitting Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs) based on historical averages. We would like to record that such an outcome would not be consistent with the principle of leaving other World Trade Organization Members no worse off, nor fully honour the existing access commitment. We cannot accept such an agreement.”
ThePanjandrum wrote: » Let's not be ridiculous, have you never heard the phrase "stop the clock" when the EU wants to conclude a deal after the deadline.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » Google it, there are plenty of examples, for instance this one Costs and Benefits of Stopping the Clock - How Airlines Profit from Changes in the EU ETS From 2012 flights to and from EU airports have been included in the EU emissions trading system (ETS). In November 2012 the Commission decided to ‘stop the clock’ and exempt emissions from intercontinental flights.
CelticRambler wrote: » A lovely example of the UK finding itself back where it started: As with previous examples, such as soybeans, most of the supposedly great trade deals that promise cheaper food will be (cannot be) better than the zero-rated imports that currently enter the EU.
10000maniacs wrote: » The schedules have not been certified yet. And Argentina, Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, Thailand, the US, and Uruguay are opposing the joint approach. So still a lot of talking to be done.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » Schedules can exist and take effect while not certified. For example, the EU has the EU itself has not traded under certified schedules since 1974.
splinter65 wrote: » Is it the general consensus then here with you guys that it’s “no deal”? I’m feeling a bit anxious. Jesus what are we going to do?
factors beyond EU trade policy would appear to have caused the decline of the MED’s orange exports to the EU. For example, market distance and product variety are of particular importance for the decline of Israeli orange exports to Germany. German importers appreciate the high flexibility with orange imports from Spain. Due to Spain’s proximity to the market, Spanish produce is packed directly in nets in Spain and transported by truck to retailers’ distribution centers in Germany within 2 days. In contrast, Israeli produce is first packed in cardboard boxes in Israel, which are transported by ship within 4 days to Marseille (France). The produce is then carried by truck to packing stations in Germany where it is repacked in nets before it is brought to supermarkets. Of course, the resulting transportation costs are lower for Spanish produce. Besides, Shamouti is the orange variety which still dominates Israeli orange production. In Spain, new orange varieties were introduced, e.g. the Navel varieties. German consumers prefer Navel over Shamouti oranges, but Israeli orange producers have not adapted to this change in consumer preferences.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » belgium hasn't got a government at the moment, has it? How could it agree?
prawnsambo wrote: » I would assume that they have a government standing in until a new one is formed.
Seth Brundle wrote: » ThePanjandrum wrote: » Why not, it's perfectly possible. How exactly will it be perfectly possible? How will it tell the contents of a van travelling by at 100km/h? How will it tell if the products travelling across the border are legal and not something being smuggled? If it were perfectly possible then someone somewhere around the world would have demonstrated it working. Can you please show us where online we can read about this demo?
ThePanjandrum wrote: » Why not, it's perfectly possible.
Peregrinus wrote: » - It's very much in the interests of both parties to have a deal;
VinLieger wrote: » While this may be true we know that neither party cares much about it. On the one hand you have a majority of conservative members who apparently have no problem with no deal and on the other you have corbyn who i think sees no deal as an instant win for labour in the next election, plus he would have ties fully cut with the EU which he would be very happy with.
Peregrinus wrote: » "Apparently" is the key word here. While a signficant number (NB certainly not a majority) of Tory MPs apparently have no propblem with no deal, this appearance is based on what they say. But, if I'm correct, what they say is part of the game of chicken; it doesn't necessarily represent what they know, believe or intend. As for Labour, what they really want is of course an election. But I don't think Corbyn sees no deal as just an instant win for Labour in the next election. He knows how painful no deal will be; he doesn't want to be manouvred into a position where no deal ensues and Labour gets the blame. He also will be looking a bit beyond the next election; he probably doesn't relish governing a UK that is firefighting the effects of no deal, because that will consume all the available resources, cash, and political and public attention, and leave very little scope for the implementation of the major policy initiatives that Labour would like to implement in its next term in government. What would actually suit Corbyn best is the UK exiting on May's deal, followed by an early general election so that Labour, not the Tories, get to negotiate the long-term relationship, but without the massive internal and external constraints that would come from having to do so while in the throes of a no-deal Brexit. May's deal doesn't actually constrain the long-term relationship in any meaningful way, so from that point of view there is no downside for Labour in having to work with May's deal.
Leroy42 wrote: » Why do you think these politicians are simply hiding the truth they accept? Throughout this is has appeared that particularly Brexiteers have been dismissive of any and all experts and as such where do you think they are getting the info that this would be bad.
Leroy42 wrote: » I fully accept that they acknowledge (late in the day) that No Deal will bring short term issues, but it seems that they are more than happy to accept that pain.
Leroy42 wrote: » I also don't see where you are getting the idea that Corbyn sees it as a negative. IMO, it is a price worth paying to get control and thus implement his agenda.
Peregrinus wrote: » (A) From common sense. (B) From experts. The fact that they pose as being dismissive of expert advice in order to secure political advantage doesn't mean that they do actually dismiss it. You'll notice a sharp distinction bewteen brexiters in the Cabinet, who have largely dropped the pretence that no deal is acceptable, and Brexiters outside, who insist that it is. This represents different tactical choices; those who have chosen to pretend that a no-deal brexit is acceptable have also positioned themselves so that they will not be responsible for the delivery of Brexit. And this reflects the facdt that, if and when it actually happens, they know that no-deal Brexit will not be acceptable (to the voters). Corbyn knows that he is cruising to victory at the next general election. (Does the present Tory government look to you like one that could win a fourth successive general election? No, me neither.) The tide is flowing strongly Labour's way; all he has to do is not bugger it up. He doesn't need to plunge the country into chaos in order to win the next general election. While plunging the country into chaos would probably give him a more decisive election victory, it also gives him a huge problem once he is in office, and makes it much more difficult for him to do the things he wants to do. So, given his druthers, he'd avoid a no-deal Brexit. Having said that, there is a risk that if Labour starts to bleed support from disappointed Remainers who finally realise that Corbyn is not playing a clever game to deliver Remain or a soft Brexit, Corbyn may realise that he is in danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and may think, yes, he has to manouvre the Tories into a no-deal Brexit in order to be confident of winning the next election. But it's certainly not his optimal strategy.
