Politics, politics, politics

[scaramanga]

The question is, why aren't we trading with these non European places now?

That's a really simple one.

Because the EU is protectionist in nature and forces us to place tariff and non-tariff barriers on that trade. In some cases to the point where it completely stops trade entirely.

 

[SpurMeUp]

That's a really simple one.

Because the EU is protectionist in nature and forces us to place tariff and non-tariff barriers on that trade. In some cases to the point where it completely stops trade entirely.

In one post you're saying WTO tariffs won't make much difference to our exports to the EU, in this post you're saying tariffs are currently stopping us from trading with ex-EU countries. Can't spin it both ways!

Of course tariffs reduce trade. Any product that has a tariff on it will be at a competitive disadvantage to non-tariff products, reducing sales. But there is no guarantee leaving the EU will reduce tariffs. India will not give up its own whisky production for example, and we have less to bargain with - 50m consumers vs 500m.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[scaramanga]

In one post you're saying WTO tariffs won't make much difference to our exports to the EU, in this post you're saying tariffs are currently stopping us from trading with ex-EU countries. Can't spin it both ways!

Of course tariffs reduce trade. Any product that has a tariff on it will be at a competitive disadvantage to non-tariff products, reducing sales. But there is no guarantee leaving the EU will reduce tariffs. India will not give up its only whisky production for example, and we have less to bargain with - 50m consumers vs 500m.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

Tariffs always reduce trade, they're a terrible thing and shouldn't exist.

But the tariffs the EU will impose on us (in worst case scenario) are less than the savings we will make by not propping up their crumbling experiment.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Tariffs always reduce trade, they're a terrible thing and shouldn't exist.

But the tariffs the EU will impose on us (in worst case scenario) are less than the savings we will make by not propping up their crumbling experiment.

Have you oversimplified (or fully understood) WTO trading rules? Taking all our exports and applying the average tariff and off setting the EU contribution doesn't give the full picture unfortunately. WTO terms would mean that if we import something from the EU, we might also have to add a tariff so other countries get a level playing field. So the guy importing clothes from Italy or Spain would find the cost of his goods go up. He'd also have to pay VAT on the import affecting cash flow. Don't want to bore everyone, but the point which Milo alluded to earlier is that the EU is a customs union that allows freer trade. Exiting that customs union does not help free trade but will result in more complex difficult trade for the UK. That is the main reason why economists, FT journalists and those who favour free trade don't think Brexit is in Britain's interests. You're an anomaly, you voted to Remain, think you are pro free trade, and argue for Brexit. How confusing.

 

[scaramanga]

Have you oversimplified (or fully understood) WTO trading rules? Taking all our exports and applying the average tariff and off setting the EU contribution doesn't give the full picture unfortunately.

It does if it's a weighted average as I posted.

WTO terms would mean that if we import something from the EU, we might also have to add a tariff so other countries get a level playing field. So the guy importing clothes from Italy or Spain would find the cost of his goods go up. He'd also have to pay VAT on the import affecting cash flow.

We don't have to apply tariffs on anyone. You need to leave this 1970s preoccupation with protectionism behind.

Even if the EU are applying tariffs to us, we don't have to apply them in return.

Don't want to bore everyone, but the point is as Milo said earlier, the EU is a customs union that allows freer trade. The alternatives are not free trade but more complex difficult trade. That is the main reason why economists, FT journalists and those who favour free trade don't think Brexit is in Britain's interests. You're an anomaly, you voted to Remain, are pro free trade, but argue for Brexit. How confusing!

The EU is free trade with a small part of the world. Brexit means (if we choose) free trade with pretty much everyone.

The EU call themselves a customs union but they're not, they're an artificial border decades after borders became outdated.

 

[SpurMeUp]

It does if it's a weighted average as I posted.


We don't have to apply tariffs on anyone. You need to leave this 1970s preoccupation with protectionism behind.

Even if the EU are applying tariffs to us, we don't have to apply them in return.


The EU is free trade with a small part of the world. Brexit means (if we choose) free trade with pretty much everyone.

The EU call themselves a customs union but they're not, they're an artificial border decades after borders became outdated.

Not so I'm afraid. You simply don't understand WTO rules. If you import shoes from Spain, WTO might mean there is a tariff (likely around 10%). Just as there is a tariff going the other way. Or do you think WTO tariffs only apply in one direction! So other countries can compete with the EU, WTO can insist that Spain apply that tariff to an export to the UK, even if we don't want one.

Do you assume, post Brexit we'll have freer trade? That India will say, sure former colonial masters, we'll open up our 1b consumers to you without anything in return? They will ask for free movement of people or a quota of people who can come and study and work here, there will be complex trade agreements where they will try to protect their whisky industry and every other important home industry. That's why trade agreements take so many years, there is a lot of detail to agree. And we have the bargaining chip of 50m consumers vs their 1b. Yes ours are wealthy, but they will not lose much by not trading with us. The EU is 10 times bigger and vastly more important to trade with.

Furthermore the freer trade that the EU has agreed with 50 odd non EU countries that we currently benefit from, will cease overnight. How long will it take to put in place an alternative? So we can't "choose" free trade with everyone, it is fantasy. Hard Brexit or Brexit that stops free movement, is to reduce freer trade. And you cant argue otherwise, as shi1 won't stack up!

 

[scaramanga]

Not so I'm afraid. You simply don't understand WTO rules. If you import shoes from Spain, WTO might mean there is a tariff. Just as there is a tariff going the other way. Or do you think WTO tariffs only apply in one direction! So that other countries can compete with the EU, WTO can insist that there is a tariff on our imports, even if we don't want one.

That's simply not true and I don't know where you've worked that out from.

All WTO tariffs are maximum tarrifs that any country can apply to another. Everyone has the option to apply any tariff they choose within that 0-maximum range. Why would the EU (or any other country) want to stop us reducing their tariffs for exports to the UK? The suggestion is just ludicrous.

I'm trying to explain this in a manner without being insulting but it's a little difficult. You're making some really bold statements about a subject on which it's clear that an even passing knowledge evades you. Anyone, anywhere can lower import tariffs whenever they want. The only ones who can't are those bound into outdated institutions like the EU.

Do you assume, post Brexit we'll have freer trade? That India will say, sure chaps, former colonial masters, we'll open up our 1b consumers to you, without anything in return? They will ask for free movement of people or a quota that can work here, there will be complex trade agreements that will try to protect their whisky industry and every other important home industry. That's why trade agreements take so many years, there is a lot of detail to agree. And we have a bargaining chip of 50m consumers vs their 1b. Yes ours are wealthy, but they will not lose much by not trading with us. The EU is 10 times bigger and vastly more important to trade with. So we can't "choose" free trade with everyone, it is a fantasy. Hard Brexit or Brexit that stops free movement, is to reduce freer trade. And you can argue otherwise as shi1 won't stack up!

They'll ask for tariff free trade in return, just like anyone else.

Do you think India won't benefit from free trade with the UK? The reason they apply tariffs to us is because we do to them.

Even if none of that trade happens (and I guarantee it will) then I've already demonstrated that our position with the EU is no worse off, so we still don't lose.

 

[SpurMeUp]

That's simply not true and I don't know where you've worked that out from.

All WTO tariffs are maximum tarrifs that any country can apply to another. Everyone has the option to apply any tariff they choose within that 0-maximum range. Why would the EU (or any other country) want to stop us reducing their tariffs for exports to the UK? The suggestion is just ludicrous.

I'm trying to explain this in a manner without being insulting but it's a little difficult. You're making some really bold statements about a subject on which it's clear that an even passing knowledge evades you. Anyone, anywhere can lower import tariffs whenever they want. The only ones who can't are those bound into outdated institutions like the EU.


They'll ask for tariff free trade in return, just like anyone else.

Do you think India won't benefit from free trade with the UK? The reason they apply tariffs to us is because we do to them.

Even if none of that trade happens (and I guarantee it will) then I've already demonstrated that our position with the EU is no worse off, so we still don't lose.

Ahaha, hilarious! WTO insists that ‘most-favoured nation’ terms are applied to all other country trade not covered by a free trade agreement. Thus, we would be subject to EU import tariffs under WTO rules. I'm sorry to say you are simply wrong. Have a look at this from the CBI for example, all outlined there for you, or are they also making bold statements on things they don't understand! You are a riot!

Access to European markets on WTO terms would hit British exporters and importers with tariffs
Under the WTO framework, the key principle of non-discrimination requires members not to treat any trading partner less advantageously than any other, unless covered by a free trade agreement or laws giving developing countries preferential access.

For goods, this means that tariffs applied to the ‘most-favoured nation’ (MFN) must apply to all other countries too. The EU could therefore not apply discriminatory or punitive tariffs after a UK exit above or below its MFN levels. As Exhibit 62 shows, the EU’s average MFN tariffs have fallen consistently over time, and so the WTO framework would prevent the tariffs imposed on the UK from being as high as they would have been 20 or even 10 years ago. Nevertheless, new tariffs of economic significance would still be imposed on around 90% by value of the UK’s goods exports to the EU, causing most UK exporters to become less price competitive than their EU competitors or companies from countries with which the EU has signed FTAs.

If the UK – having negotiated in the WTO as part of the EU – were to inherit the EU’s common external tariffs as a starting point for its own tariffs, companies importing from the EU would be hurt as import tariffs would rise from the zero level for intra-EU trade to the level of the EU’s external tariffs. The implications of a move to an MFN trading arrangement for exporters and domestic consumers would vary considerably by sector. For instance the UK runs a £2.9bn trade surplus on liquefied natural gas that would be hit by a 4.1% tariff.

Trade in services between the UK and EU would also be governed under a WTO framework, the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Under this agreement, all WTO members again have to respect the principle of non-discrimination, and varying levels of binding liberalisation commitments are made by WTO members in individual services sectors. As a ‘stand-alone’ WTO member, the UK would be faced with the same level of access to the EU services market as all other WTO members in line with the EU’s GATS commitments – a much lower degree of access to the free movement of services which is a central facet of the Single Market enshrined in the EU Treaties.

As tariffs and quotas have become less prevalent barriers to global trade, non-tariff barriers have become increasingly significant (see Exhibit 63). For example, a direct consequence of leaving and not preserving a common regulatory agenda with the EU would be that regulatory divergence would creep in over time and British businesses could face new non-tariff barriers that would harm trade with the EU.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

For most its because they lost a vote which they said would not happen, and they will scream and scream until they are sick.

He, he love the 'Just William' reference.

 

[nayenezgani]

This is way more entertaining if you imagine @SpurMeUp is an account that @scaramanga created for himself to argue with..

 

[scaramanga]

Ahaha, hilarious! WTO insists that ‘most-favoured nation’ terms are applied to all other country trade not covered by a free trade agreement. Thus, we would be subject to EU import tariffs under WTO rules. I'm sorry to say you are simply wrong. Have a look at this from the CBI for example, all outlined there for you, or are they also making bold statements on things they don't understand! You are a riot!

Access to European markets on WTO terms would hit British exporters and importers with tariffs
Under the WTO framework, the key principle of non-discrimination requires members not to treat any trading partner less advantageously than any other, unless covered by a free trade agreement or laws giving developing countries preferential access.

For goods, this means that tariffs applied to the ‘most-favoured nation’ (MFN) must apply to all other countries too. The EU could therefore not apply discriminatory or punitive tariffs after a UK exit above or below its MFN levels. As Exhibit 62 shows, the EU’s average MFN tariffs have fallen consistently over time, and so the WTO framework would prevent the tariffs imposed on the UK from being as high as they would have been 20 or even 10 years ago. Nevertheless, new tariffs of economic significance would still be imposed on around 90% by value of the UK’s goods exports to the EU, causing most UK exporters to become less price competitive than their EU competitors or companies from countries with which the EU has signed FTAs.

If the UK – having negotiated in the WTO as part of the EU – were to inherit the EU’s common external tariffs as a starting point for its own tariffs, companies importing from the EU would be hurt as import tariffs would rise from the zero level for intra-EU trade to the level of the EU’s external tariffs. The implications of a move to an MFN trading arrangement for exporters and domestic consumers would vary considerably by sector. For instance the UK runs a £2.9bn trade surplus on liquefied natural gas that would be hit by a 4.1% tariff.

Trade in services between the UK and EU would also be governed under a WTO framework, the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Under this agreement, all WTO members again have to respect the principle of non-discrimination, and varying levels of binding liberalisation commitments are made by WTO members in individual services sectors. As a ‘stand-alone’ WTO member, the UK would be faced with the same level of access to the EU services market as all other WTO members in line with the EU’s GATS commitments – a much lower degree of access to the free movement of services which is a central facet of the Single Market enshrined in the EU Treaties.

As tariffs and quotas have become less prevalent barriers to global trade, non-tariff barriers have become increasingly significant (see Exhibit 63). For example, a direct consequence of leaving and not preserving a common regulatory agenda with the EU would be that regulatory divergence would creep in over time and British businesses could face new non-tariff barriers that would harm trade with the EU.

I understand how theost favoured nation principle works.

If we're trading freely with the rest of the world, then we can set EU tariffs to 0, that's the whole point of it

 

[scaramanga]

This is way more entertaining if you imagine @SpurMeUp is an account that @scaramanga created for himself to argue with..

I'm not nearly inventive enough to create such a lack of comprehension.

 

[the dza]

So, is leaving the EU good for trade or not? Which one of you is right? Boil it down for an idiot (me) please.

 

[Gutter Boy]

So, is leaving the EU good for trade or not? Which one of you is right? Boil it down for an idiot (me) please.

Bad in the short term, good in the medium and long term

We're currently stuck in a small closed block that isn't doing so well. It will take a while to re-orientate ourselves to being global again, but the rewards there are much greater. We'll gain more flexibility in setting our terms and increasing our attractiveness, and we'll be able to trade with more dynamic parts of the world.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I understand how theost favoured nation principle works.

If we're trading freely with the rest of the world, then we can set EU tariffs to 0, that's the whole point of it

Is that your way of saying yes I was wrong? I didn't know there were WTO controlled tariffs on imports as well as exports?

 

[SpurMeUp]

This is way more entertaining if you imagine @SpurMeUp is an account that @scaramanga created for himself to argue with..

Isn't that Gutter Boy?

 

[SpurMeUp]

So, is leaving the EU good for trade or not? Which one of you is right? Boil it down for an idiot (me) please.

According to anyone reputable its generally considered bad for trade. But no one knows exactly how things will play out. The EU is a customs union, it is designed to allow freer trade. That is the point of the EU. Free movement of goods is the most important principle of the EU.

 

[Gutter Boy]

According to anyone reputable its generally considered bad for trade. But no one knows exactly how things will play out. The EU is a customs union, it is designed to allow freer trade. That is the point of the EU. Free movement of goods is the most important principle of the EU.

Freer trade within. But it inhibits trade from without. It's a protectionist bloc.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Freer trade within. But it inhibits trade from without. It's a protectionist bloc.

Yet the EU has 50 odd free trade agreements with non-EU countries. So we can trade on better than WTO terms with the likes of South Africa, Korea etc Come Brexit we'll lose those freer trading terms, temporarily, or permanently if we can't make our own agreements (and we have 50m vs the 550m consumers the EU took to the table when it agreed these deals). So I am not sure the EU restricts trade from without at all. Turkey, Canada etc etc all trade on better than WTO terms for goods with EU nations.

 

[scaramanga]

Is that your way of saying yes I was wrong? I didn't know there were WTO controlled tariffs on imports as well as exports?

No, I'm trying to make clear to you what I've been saying all along.

If we leave the EU, we can get rid of tariffs. I don't see how difficult that is to understand.