ChatterBank0 min ago
Remain In The Eu
I am exasperated daily by the leave argument that the referendum result was it and no one can change their mind. If that were the case we would only ever have one general election. It is clear that the balance of public opinion has changed towards remaining ing the EU. Common sense has returned and we shall be the better for it.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rich47. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Modern trade agreements do indeed frequently involve changing the domestic laws and regulations of participant countries. It's a little strange to insist that they don't:
https:/
It's also strange in my opinion to talk about the UK "choosing" its post-Brexit trade arrangements when, frankly, beggars can't be choosers. In a no-deal scenario we would desperately need new trade agreements as quickly as possible to make up for lost trade at a time when our economy would be seriously disrupted (even the hardest of hard Brexiterrs seem to admit that the country will be somewhat poorer in this circumstance). We're not going to have any leverage to negotiate really good trade deals in a hard Brexit scenario: we'll get what we're given and effectively become rule-taker anyway.
https:/
It's also strange in my opinion to talk about the UK "choosing" its post-Brexit trade arrangements when, frankly, beggars can't be choosers. In a no-deal scenario we would desperately need new trade agreements as quickly as possible to make up for lost trade at a time when our economy would be seriously disrupted (even the hardest of hard Brexiterrs seem to admit that the country will be somewhat poorer in this circumstance). We're not going to have any leverage to negotiate really good trade deals in a hard Brexit scenario: we'll get what we're given and effectively become rule-taker anyway.
A cover-up as well, whatever next from this hapless woman. What's this one to be called, "Legalgate"?
https:/
https:/
"In a no-deal scenario we would desperately need new trade agreements as quickly as possible to make up for lost trade at a time when our economy would be seriously disrupted"
These arguments are getting very tedious.
Incredible as it may seem, trade takes place between nations without trade agreements being in place. The USA is the UK's biggest single trading partner but no deal is in place (possibly because the EU - who negotiate such deals on our behalf - has been singularly unable to strike a deal).
We don't need new trade agreements to conduct new trade and we won't therefore be begging for anything. What we will be able to do is to conduct trade which we are currently prevented from or restricted in because of our EU membership. More than that, the forecast loss of trade from the EU is by no means accurately quantified. There seems to be widespread rumours that trade between the UK and the EU will cease or reduce drastically. But the same principle applies. Trade can be enjoyed without trading agreements and once the EU gets over its initial strop caused by the EU's "proper" departure (during which time it will inevitably make like difficult for the UK and in doing so do likewise for its remaining members) it may find that the EU27 suggest they might stop being silly.
These arguments are getting very tedious.
Incredible as it may seem, trade takes place between nations without trade agreements being in place. The USA is the UK's biggest single trading partner but no deal is in place (possibly because the EU - who negotiate such deals on our behalf - has been singularly unable to strike a deal).
We don't need new trade agreements to conduct new trade and we won't therefore be begging for anything. What we will be able to do is to conduct trade which we are currently prevented from or restricted in because of our EU membership. More than that, the forecast loss of trade from the EU is by no means accurately quantified. There seems to be widespread rumours that trade between the UK and the EU will cease or reduce drastically. But the same principle applies. Trade can be enjoyed without trading agreements and once the EU gets over its initial strop caused by the EU's "proper" departure (during which time it will inevitably make like difficult for the UK and in doing so do likewise for its remaining members) it may find that the EU27 suggest they might stop being silly.
Yes by definition. You don't negotiate an agreement to be equally ok or worse off. But not necessarily massively so. No worry. And it gives incentive for the world's countries to negotiate sensibly (unless we're referring to the EU of course, who are only interested in bullying a leaving member, trying to retain control over them, even if it means disadvantaging it's remaining members).
Even WTO membership infringes on our autonomy to some degree, though (e.g. through anti-dumping measures, regulations etc). Shall we leave that too or is that little bit of sovereignty worth sacrificing?
Incidentally, do you know how many countries in the world trade exclusively through the WTO without any free trade deals? It's actually just one:
https:/
Incidentally, do you know how many countries in the world trade exclusively through the WTO without any free trade deals? It's actually just one:
https:/
“Incidentally, do you know how many countries in the world trade exclusively through the WTO without any free trade deals?”
I’m not suggesting that the UK conducts its trade exclusively on WTO terms. Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and Trading Blocs (TBs) are a great idea – provided they are freely entered into and can be readily modified or ended as the participants think fit. Membership of the EU however does not allow that – at least not without the drama that has engulfed this nation for the last two years.
We can debate this until the cows come home but in an attempt to avoid us having to do so you need to realise important differences between FTAs, TBs and the Single Market/Customs Union (SM/CU) that is imposed by virtue of membership of the EU.
FTAs are simply bilateral agreements between two or more nations which govern the way specific goods or services will be traded between them. They may involve tariffs and restrictions, they usually involve common standards although they may not. TBs are formed when a number of nations get together and agree not to impose tariffs on trade between them. However none that I know of provide for free movement of people or capital. None that I know of prevents its members from striking deals outside the bloc as they think fit. Relatively few nations are members of TBs though, as you point out, most have FTAs in place to a greater or lesser degree.
The SM/CU goes considerably further. It sets out common standards for goods, whether they are traded internationally or not, it sets common tariffs which all members must apply to imported goods from elsewhere, it prevents members from negotiating trade deals individually so as no member might gain an advantage over the others. As if that isn’t enough, as I have pointed out many times before, the EU imposes legislation on its members which has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with the formation of a single federal state.
One of the main advantages of leaving the EU (as far as trade goes) is to enable the UK to strike trade agreements and possibly join trading blocs of our own accord which suit us without consideration for 27 other nations, thus maximising those advantages. Whatever conditions are set out for those collaborations are for us to negotiate, accept or decline. Our membership of the EU removes those rights; agreements are negotiated on our behalf by unelected (mainly foreign) officials who are uncontrolled by elected politicians. They are constructed with the needs and requirements of 28 very disparate nations and rarely, if ever, do those needs and requirements concur. There are many trading arrangements which the EU has negotiated and to which we are bound which simply do not suit the UK.
The Single Market/Customs Union is constructed to stifle competition among its members. It is designed to make it more attractive to deal within the Market than outside, even when far better deals could be struck for individual nations by themselves. With the EU’s proportion of global trade steadily declining it makes no sense for any country to have its trade restricted in such a manner.
To conflate membership of the EU (even in its present form without considering its aims for the future) with membership of a FTA or TB is simply nonsense. If you wanted any more proof, the 585 page “Agreement” does not consider future trade between the UK and the EU at all. It is effectively an agreement allowing us to carry on as if nothing has happened but with a few minor (but very significant) tweaks. All it is concerned with is retaining the status quo between the two for as long as possible, and in some respects as long as the EU thinks fit, after we “leave”. The EU will not countenance anything that gives this country an advantage over its members but our “negotiators’” mistake was to ever believe that they would. That’s the EU’s prerogative. but they should not be surprised when our MPs kick their agreement into touch
I’m not suggesting that the UK conducts its trade exclusively on WTO terms. Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and Trading Blocs (TBs) are a great idea – provided they are freely entered into and can be readily modified or ended as the participants think fit. Membership of the EU however does not allow that – at least not without the drama that has engulfed this nation for the last two years.
We can debate this until the cows come home but in an attempt to avoid us having to do so you need to realise important differences between FTAs, TBs and the Single Market/Customs Union (SM/CU) that is imposed by virtue of membership of the EU.
FTAs are simply bilateral agreements between two or more nations which govern the way specific goods or services will be traded between them. They may involve tariffs and restrictions, they usually involve common standards although they may not. TBs are formed when a number of nations get together and agree not to impose tariffs on trade between them. However none that I know of provide for free movement of people or capital. None that I know of prevents its members from striking deals outside the bloc as they think fit. Relatively few nations are members of TBs though, as you point out, most have FTAs in place to a greater or lesser degree.
The SM/CU goes considerably further. It sets out common standards for goods, whether they are traded internationally or not, it sets common tariffs which all members must apply to imported goods from elsewhere, it prevents members from negotiating trade deals individually so as no member might gain an advantage over the others. As if that isn’t enough, as I have pointed out many times before, the EU imposes legislation on its members which has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with the formation of a single federal state.
One of the main advantages of leaving the EU (as far as trade goes) is to enable the UK to strike trade agreements and possibly join trading blocs of our own accord which suit us without consideration for 27 other nations, thus maximising those advantages. Whatever conditions are set out for those collaborations are for us to negotiate, accept or decline. Our membership of the EU removes those rights; agreements are negotiated on our behalf by unelected (mainly foreign) officials who are uncontrolled by elected politicians. They are constructed with the needs and requirements of 28 very disparate nations and rarely, if ever, do those needs and requirements concur. There are many trading arrangements which the EU has negotiated and to which we are bound which simply do not suit the UK.
The Single Market/Customs Union is constructed to stifle competition among its members. It is designed to make it more attractive to deal within the Market than outside, even when far better deals could be struck for individual nations by themselves. With the EU’s proportion of global trade steadily declining it makes no sense for any country to have its trade restricted in such a manner.
To conflate membership of the EU (even in its present form without considering its aims for the future) with membership of a FTA or TB is simply nonsense. If you wanted any more proof, the 585 page “Agreement” does not consider future trade between the UK and the EU at all. It is effectively an agreement allowing us to carry on as if nothing has happened but with a few minor (but very significant) tweaks. All it is concerned with is retaining the status quo between the two for as long as possible, and in some respects as long as the EU thinks fit, after we “leave”. The EU will not countenance anything that gives this country an advantage over its members but our “negotiators’” mistake was to ever believe that they would. That’s the EU’s prerogative. but they should not be surprised when our MPs kick their agreement into touch
I’m not trying to equate EU membership with an FTA, New Judge. I understand that membership is considerably more involved than that. The point I’m trying to make is that there’s no way the UK can be absolutely, 100% sovereign over all of its affairs if it makes a clean break with the EU. In every possible scenario, we’re going to be taking some rules from elsewhere – whether it be from prospective trading partners, from the EU, or from the WTO. Domestic regulations are an important part of modern trade diplomacy regardless of whether or not they end up in the final text of FTAs. This usually takes the form of harmonisation or (if you’re dealing with the US or China), abolition.
This is why the USA has made it very clear that it expects us to drop our food safety regulations (for everything) if we want a trade deal. I haven’t read anything about what would China would expect – but you can be damn sure it would come with very similar strings. Even if we found those choices too unpalatable, and decided to forego trade agreements (which nobody except Mauritiana does) we will still need to take rules from the WTO – which *does* infringe to at least some extent on our autonomy (and is largely staffed by foreign bureaucrats).
You can either be completely sovereign, or you can be a global economy. Unless you’re a true superpower (which we aren’t), you can’t be both.
I get that this is all less intensive than what you see as EU interference in our economy at the moment, and that for you our sovereignty is the overriding reason for leaving. But if in practice we’re going through all this bother (or turmoil in the case of hard Brexit) to be ‘a bit more sovereign’, then frankly I don’t see the point.
Also, your assertion that “relatively few nations” are members of trade blocs is a bit misleading, because most nations are members of organisations that grant the same benefits as trade blocs (although by your standards above would probably count as a bit more intrusive). Look at this map of the world by major trade groups:
https:/
You’ll notice that the only absent areas are either huge global powers or seriously underdeveloped. You’ll also notice that plenty of trade blocs like ASEAN, MERCOSUR, and Eurasian Economic Union do provide for free movement of capital or people (in fact MERCOSUR in a lot of ways has even less regulated movement of people than the EU does, although it doesn’t have a court for settling disputes). CARICOM and CEMAC (which also provides for free movement of capital if not people) also practice harmonization of regulations, as do many others. I haven’t checked each one, but it’s my understanding that plenty of these groups also do prevent their members from striking bilateral trade deals.
This is the world that we’re really stepping into in a hard-Brexit scenario.
This is why the USA has made it very clear that it expects us to drop our food safety regulations (for everything) if we want a trade deal. I haven’t read anything about what would China would expect – but you can be damn sure it would come with very similar strings. Even if we found those choices too unpalatable, and decided to forego trade agreements (which nobody except Mauritiana does) we will still need to take rules from the WTO – which *does* infringe to at least some extent on our autonomy (and is largely staffed by foreign bureaucrats).
You can either be completely sovereign, or you can be a global economy. Unless you’re a true superpower (which we aren’t), you can’t be both.
I get that this is all less intensive than what you see as EU interference in our economy at the moment, and that for you our sovereignty is the overriding reason for leaving. But if in practice we’re going through all this bother (or turmoil in the case of hard Brexit) to be ‘a bit more sovereign’, then frankly I don’t see the point.
Also, your assertion that “relatively few nations” are members of trade blocs is a bit misleading, because most nations are members of organisations that grant the same benefits as trade blocs (although by your standards above would probably count as a bit more intrusive). Look at this map of the world by major trade groups:
https:/
You’ll notice that the only absent areas are either huge global powers or seriously underdeveloped. You’ll also notice that plenty of trade blocs like ASEAN, MERCOSUR, and Eurasian Economic Union do provide for free movement of capital or people (in fact MERCOSUR in a lot of ways has even less regulated movement of people than the EU does, although it doesn’t have a court for settling disputes). CARICOM and CEMAC (which also provides for free movement of capital if not people) also practice harmonization of regulations, as do many others. I haven’t checked each one, but it’s my understanding that plenty of these groups also do prevent their members from striking bilateral trade deals.
This is the world that we’re really stepping into in a hard-Brexit scenario.
Thanks for the comprehensive response, kromo.
"In every possible scenario, we’re going to be taking some rules from elsewhere – whether it be from prospective trading partners, from the EU, or from the WTO."
Indeed. The big difference is that what rules we take and whether we continue to take them will be our choice and not those of an unelected supra-national organisation. Furthermore our Parliament will regain it supremacy over the laws that spew forth from that organisation .
Your citing of "MERCOSUR" is just about the worst example of the evolution of a trading bloc with delusions of grandeur imaginable. That fractious organisation has been riven with strife, disagreement and suspensions almost since its inception. It has been on the point of dissolution at least twice and its pretention to be "The EU of South America" is laughable. It has the stated aim of facilitating free movement of capital and people but I'm not sure that either has been realised. It suffers from all the problems that have or will beset the EU and the EU has only avoided disintegration because of the anti-democratic measures it imposes on its truculent members.
"In every possible scenario, we’re going to be taking some rules from elsewhere – whether it be from prospective trading partners, from the EU, or from the WTO."
Indeed. The big difference is that what rules we take and whether we continue to take them will be our choice and not those of an unelected supra-national organisation. Furthermore our Parliament will regain it supremacy over the laws that spew forth from that organisation .
Your citing of "MERCOSUR" is just about the worst example of the evolution of a trading bloc with delusions of grandeur imaginable. That fractious organisation has been riven with strife, disagreement and suspensions almost since its inception. It has been on the point of dissolution at least twice and its pretention to be "The EU of South America" is laughable. It has the stated aim of facilitating free movement of capital and people but I'm not sure that either has been realised. It suffers from all the problems that have or will beset the EU and the EU has only avoided disintegration because of the anti-democratic measures it imposes on its truculent members.
Sovereignty is not lost if you approve of the rules. It's seen to be lost when they are imposed against your wishes. One should avoid assuming any deal signed up to is the same thing in that respect; and implying if one accepts or rejects one, then one is obliged to accept or reject all others for the same reasons.
No one seriously opts to conduct all trade at the WTO default rule level, but it's a decent basis upon which to trade when one hasn't yet agreed a better option, or if one is only being offered a one-sided arrangement. Mauritania would be wise to discuss their trade relationships with others.
No one seriously opts to conduct all trade at the WTO default rule level, but it's a decent basis upon which to trade when one hasn't yet agreed a better option, or if one is only being offered a one-sided arrangement. Mauritania would be wise to discuss their trade relationships with others.
There are 194 countries out there. Even if the big players try it on and don't agree that the standards of the exported to country aren't to be respected, there are many others not going to demand as much. Ultimately it's about finding deals one can live with. Such a pity Europe didn't go down the route of forming a decent trade group.
Latest Posts
P M Qs..... The Understudies.... Usual...
News24 mins ago
Film, Media & TV26 mins ago
Crosswords27 mins ago
