"Theresa May will attempt to seize the initiative on Brexit today by publishing outline legislation on Britain’s post-withdrawal customs and trading relationships with the EU.
The Prime Minister will try to “focus minds” in Brussels by setting out fresh details of the Government’s expectations even before talks on trade have begun.
The aggressive move comes after Mrs May told the EU “the ball is in their court” and is intended to show EU negotiators that Britain is getting on with its preparations for withdrawal at a time when Brussels is stalling over trade talks."
My reading of this is that Barnier told the UK that the concessions in the Florence speech would be what was required to unblock the process - if the UK made the first concessions then he would follow. As soon as they were made, the EU backtracked - just as Yanis Varoufakis warned us they would.
I notice that the Remainers in the cabinet (plus Davidson) are all singing the same tune on this - they all say that the EU has to move next. I think that the Govt are showing the signs that they have lost faith in the EU to keep their word - and even if we ever move to Phase 2 that completing an agreement in this environment may be impossible.
The amazing thing reading all this is how Remainers take it as an article of complete faith that WTO rules will be a catastrophe. Yet whenever you ask them to explain their reasoning in detail and review the evidence, they never want to answer. It is if they repeat the same thing enough times it just becomes true.
It is all a matter of opinion, but there is plenty of ground to think that WTO rules will be only marginally sub-optimal and certainly not worth humiliating the country by grovelling to the EU about a trade deal that will probably never get done. We don't have a FREE trade deal with the EU at the moment so it is far from clear why not having one in the future will make such a huge difference.
The post-referendum crash never happened. Can you imagine how the Remainers would cope if we exit to WTO rules and not much happens
What I find amazing is how many people still do not get that the biggest problem with moving to a WTO scenario is not the tariffs, it's the multiple time efficiencies that leaving the single market and customs union with no replacements would end - and which so many business strategies are based on.
And you don't think that business could adapt to that? Of course they can, if they have enough leadtime which is currently being wasted.
Supply chains include both EU nations and WTO nations (eg Japan, US, China etc). They can plan for these eventualities as they deal with them already. And how much is the loss of some 'time efficiency' going to affect the economy? Is it really going to cost more than the 10billion a year we pay for the privilege?
Of course businesses can adapt - and they will. It will involve fewer investing in the UK and more investing in countries that remain in the single market. We, for example, will create less jobs in our UK office and more in our Hong Kong and US ones (in fact, we have recently moved to a bigger office in HK to accommodate our increased headcount). As a shareholder it will make no difference to me, but it does mean that well paid jobs that would have been created in the UK - and taxes that would have been paid here - will now be created and paid elsewhere. It's very simple: the UK will be a market of 65 million people, not part of one of 450 million, so it will become less interesting.
How about the Nissan plant in Sunderland as an obvious example. Loads of Japanese parts obviously.
Really?
That seems unlikely
So you seriously think that the Nissan's built in Sunderland have 0 Japanese parts? Last estimate I saw had 80% EU sourced parts, so 20% outside the customs Union.
When a part from Japan arrives do you really think it's stuck in customs for weeks?
This whole argument around customs delays is just ridiculous. 50+% of all our imports are from outside the customs Union. How are they processed?
How do we manage to get fruit and veg in winter from outside the customs Union when they're stuck in customs for weeks waiting for a man a clipboard to check them though.
Scott follows Ian Dunt and Faisil from Sky on twitter - so it is highly unlikely that your knowledge of business would be better than his.
Hang on - so the argument now is that tariffs and customs formalities aren't important? So in that case, why was the argument previously that we needed to leave the customs union so that we could set up free trade deals with other countries?
The amazing thing reading all this is how Remainers take it as an article of complete faith that WTO rules will be a catastrophe. Yet whenever you ask them to explain their reasoning in detail and review the evidence, they never want to answer. It is if they repeat the same thing enough times it just becomes true.
It is all a matter of opinion, but there is plenty of ground to think that WTO rules will be only marginally sub-optimal and certainly not worth humiliating the country by grovelling to the EU about a trade deal that will probably never get done. We don't have a FREE trade deal with the EU at the moment so it is far from clear why not having one in the future will make such a huge difference.
The post-referendum crash never happened. Can you imagine how the Remainers would cope if we exit to WTO rules and not much happens
What I find amazing is how many people still do not get that the biggest problem with moving to a WTO scenario is not the tariffs, it's the multiple time efficiencies that leaving the single market and customs union with no replacements would end - and which so many business strategies are based on.
And you don't think that business could adapt to that? Of course they can, if they have enough leadtime which is currently being wasted.
Supply chains include both EU nations and WTO nations (eg Japan, US, China etc). They can plan for these eventualities as they deal with them already. And how much is the loss of some 'time efficiency' going to affect the economy? Is it really going to cost more than the 10billion a year we pay for the privilege?
Most scenarios proposed for the "WTO effect" by the IFS are in the range £25bn to £40bn
The amazing thing reading all this is how Remainers take it as an article of complete faith that WTO rules will be a catastrophe. Yet whenever you ask them to explain their reasoning in detail and review the evidence, they never want to answer. It is if they repeat the same thing enough times it just becomes true.
Conversely, if WTO is so good, why do countries spend time (years!!) negotiating FTAs?
FTAs are more optimal than WTO, nobody denies that. But the fact that so many countries are prepared to use WTO and don't hurry along to FTAs probably indicates that in the real World it does not make that much difference. If it does, why is the EU so desperately slow in agreeing WTOs with major economies? I suggest because they know it is not all that critical.
Is there any other example ever of a major economy leaving a single market to go to WTO rules?
No. So how can you proclaim it will be a disaster?
However, the evidence shows that the establishment of the SM had no measurable impact on the level of intra-EU trade and that the countries that have had the most success trading with the EU are pretty much an even mix of EU and WTO nations.
I don't claim it will be a disaster, merely that it will mean less investment, fewer jobs and lower living standards than would otherwise have been the case. And those at the bottom of the pile will be the ones to suffer most.
So you seriously think that the Nissan's built in Sunderland have 0 Japanese parts? Last estimate I saw had 80% EU sourced parts, so 20% outside the customs Union.
I am saying that's a reasonable assumption.
There is no component of a standard motor car that can't be sourced or manufactured in the EU, although raw materials will come from outside.
It doesn't make economic sense to ship manufactured parts from Japan
No it isn't - unless we've been lied to this whole time about them not needing a deal or even caring to, since they have the upper hand. If that were true they wouldn't care to chide us about the ball being in our court, since they won't be playing with us anyway.
No, there's a difference between not caring at all and not feeling it's their main preoccupation. Their position is, "Britain wants to leave, that's unfortunate, what are their proposals for how it should be done?" If the reply is "The ball's in your court", it's understandable if they react with puzzlement. If, in addition, they think it's because we don't know our own minds on what we want, a little eye-rolling could reasonably be added.
The amazing thing reading all this is how Remainers take it as an article of complete faith that WTO rules will be a catastrophe. Yet whenever you ask them to explain their reasoning in detail and review the evidence, they never want to answer. It is if they repeat the same thing enough times it just becomes true.
It is all a matter of opinion, but there is plenty of ground to think that WTO rules will be only marginally sub-optimal and certainly not worth humiliating the country by grovelling to the EU about a trade deal that will probably never get done. We don't have a FREE trade deal with the EU at the moment so it is far from clear why not having one in the future will make such a huge difference.
The post-referendum crash never happened. Can you imagine how the Remainers would cope if we exit to WTO rules and not much happens
What I find amazing is how many people still do not get that the biggest problem with moving to a WTO scenario is not the tariffs, it's the multiple time efficiencies that leaving the single market and customs union with no replacements would end - and which so many business strategies are based on.
And you don't think that business could adapt to that? Of course they can, if they have enough leadtime which is currently being wasted.
Supply chains include both EU nations and WTO nations (eg Japan, US, China etc). They can plan for these eventualities as they deal with them already. And how much is the loss of some 'time efficiency' going to affect the economy? Is it really going to cost more than the 10billion a year we pay for the privilege?
Most scenarios proposed for the "WTO effect" by the IFS are in the range £25bn to £40bn
So yes. It will cost us a lot more than £10bn
The models used by groups such as the IFS have no empirical evidence, since as SO stated this has not been done before. Therefore the models have assumptions which reflect the bias of the writers - just like the infamous Treasury models.
They may be right. However, as I mentioned, the historical data (which is not based on assumptions) did not show that the establishment of the SM within the EU made any real difference to trade growth or GDP growth within the EU.
I do know that nobody else in the World outside of the EU/EEA has EVER paid billions of dollars for a FTA. Which suggests that they are not worth that much.
The amazing thing reading all this is how Remainers take it as an article of complete faith that WTO rules will be a catastrophe. Yet whenever you ask them to explain their reasoning in detail and review the evidence, they never want to answer. It is if they repeat the same thing enough times it just becomes true.
It is all a matter of opinion, but there is plenty of ground to think that WTO rules will be only marginally sub-optimal and certainly not worth humiliating the country by grovelling to the EU about a trade deal that will probably never get done. We don't have a FREE trade deal with the EU at the moment so it is far from clear why not having one in the future will make such a huge difference.
The post-referendum crash never happened. Can you imagine how the Remainers would cope if we exit to WTO rules and not much happens
What I find amazing is how many people still do not get that the biggest problem with moving to a WTO scenario is not the tariffs, it's the multiple time efficiencies that leaving the single market and customs union with no replacements would end - and which so many business strategies are based on.
Exactly. Which is why it's a "Single Market" rather than a "Free Trade Area" Non-tariff barriers are nowadays a far bigger impediment than tariff barriers. Which is also why "access to the Single Market" is very different from "being in the Single Market". Every country in the world has "access" to the Single Market, but to remove the non-tariff barriers, you have to be in the same, single, market.
I do know that nobody else in the World outside of the EU/EEA has EVER paid billions of dollars for a FTA. Which suggests that they are not worth that much.
OK then. Let's do it your way. I am not worried because I will be OK either way.
"Theresa May will attempt to seize the initiative on Brexit today by publishing outline legislation on Britain’s post-withdrawal customs and trading relationships with the EU.
The Prime Minister will try to “focus minds” in Brussels by setting out fresh details of the Government’s expectations even before talks on trade have begun.
The aggressive move comes after Mrs May told the EU “the ball is in their court” and is intended to show EU negotiators that Britain is getting on with its preparations for withdrawal at a time when Brussels is stalling over trade talks."
This is worrying. It smacks of the government getting its excuses in early. Clearly the Leavers, foreseeing doom, are attempting to mould public opinion into blaming anyone but them should the consequences of Brexit be dire. While this makes some political sense - Boris could ride the wave of stirred-up anti-EUism all the way to Downing Street - it doesn't fill one with confidence about the viability of Brexit. DD and Liam should be trumpeting their achievements from the rooftops by now, not grumbling that they were foiled at every turn. What's happened to Leave's ambition and aplomb?
Hang on - so the argument now is that tariffs and customs formalities aren't important? So in that case, why was the argument previously that we needed to leave the customs union so that we could set up free trade deals with other countries?
Jeez, and people have the nerve to blame Cameron!
I think you'll find that Leaver orthodoxy is that tariffs and customs formalities aren't important for Britain dealing with the EU and that they are important for dealing with any other country.
Hang on - so the argument now is that tariffs and customs formalities aren't important? So in that case, why was the argument previously that we needed to leave the customs union so that we could set up free trade deals with other countries?
Jeez, and people have the nerve to blame Cameron!
I think you'll find that Leaver orthodoxy is that tariffs and customs formalities aren't important for Britain dealing with the EU and that they are important for dealing with any other country.
I think that Leaver orthodoxy realises that the UK is primarily a service economy and that all Western nations are going to be increasingly reliant on services in the future. Therefore the strategic goal should be to promote FTAs that grant us access to services markets in other nations, which the EU has been a total failure in providing - in fact the EU single market does not actually extend to services because the EUs major players are focussed on other areas.
However, your point lacks logic - you obviously believe that tariffs and customs are important and yet the EU does not have FTAs with most of the World's major economies. So the Brexiteers would be right in suggesting that the costs of WTO trade with the EU might be offset by FTAs with other nations that the UK is far more likely to be able to conclude than the EU. And eventually, after some years no doubt of WTO, the EU will end up agreeing an FTA with the UK as well.
The problem with comparing the Major-Blair period with today regarding competence, is that Blair was seen as competent by a huge margin compared to Major, whereas today the opposition led by McCorbyn is seen as even more incompetent than the Tories.
The problem with comparing the Major-Blair period with today regarding competence, is that Blair was seen as competent by a huge margin compared to Major, whereas today the opposition led by McCorbyn is seen as even more incompetent than the Tories.
One of my issues with Labour right now. His MPs are shockingly stupid, they couldn't even force him out after changing every rule in the book re: elections. The majority of the PLP is just dead weight intellectually...
We really should give Northern Ireland away to the EU/Ireland, name me anything positive to come out of Northern Ireland in the last 400 years. Even if you can think of anything, it doesn't offset the troubles.
The police have said they believe two hate crimes which happened within the last week in County Down, could be linked.
Racist graffiti was daubed on a wall at Seapatrick Avenue, Banbridge, some time between Monday and Tuesday.
It said "EU rats out" along with a swastika. The wall has since been repainted.
In a video on social media, police said it may be linked to an attack last week at nearby Lincoln walk.
A Bulgarian family had the tyres of their car slashed and the word "out" painted on the side of the vehicle.
On Osborne I've always given him credit for being clever, and a strategic thinker, but with significant personality and behavioural flaws - it was too obvious that he saw everyone else as a pawn to play in his game, and didn't really care if they liked it or not. Hint: they didn't.
I think he worked well in partnership with David Cameron, and William Hague (whose influence is underrated) up until 2016, because they compensated for his political weaknesses and took the edge off him.
But, his brand of strategy had started to look rather tired by 2016, which was much more suited to the early 00s than now, and he simply made too many enemies.
By 2016 it was clear his economic strategy wasn't working.
I am no fan of George Osborne, but one thing I won't take criticism of is his broad macroeconomic strategy.
But what token did he get it wrong?
He steadily reduced a humongous deficit, whilst ensuring the highest employment rate for nearly 40 years. Any faster, the Tories would have been thrown out of office for excessive cuts, any slower and the problem would simply not have been dealt with, and lead to a even larger ballooning of our national debt to unsustainable levels.
He did a good job.
Another person who pretends that a £115bn current account deficit doesn't exist.
Altogether now "shake, shake, shake the magic money tree".
I think what this period of history demonstrates, is that democracy is broken. The public consider it one thing, politicians something else. The "stupid people" have undermined them in their view. How dare they go against what we want, think MP's, scrabbling about, panicking that their luxury lifestyle, their free jollies abroad may soon come to an abrupt end, and the remnants of their past lives, torn, like damp confetti and sprinkled all over the floor. It isn't so much Tory incompetence (although the arrogance that caused the current mess via an unwarranted election has a lot to answer for), but deliberate ploys by all MP's to sabotage what the public voted for. You may not like what the public voted for, and that's your prerogative, but it can't be ignored or undermined. There has now been more than 300 unnecessary amendments added to the Repeal Bill which is pathetic. The bill is to ensure ALL EU law is transferred to UK law on day of leaving. So, why the need to add so many amendments? How many MP's actually gave a hoot when laws they had no say in parliament were being created by unelected men in suits in Brussels and passed by the EU parliament, of which most British MEP's constantly voted against? Then these laws made part of UK law without any parliamentary debate at all. Now these same laws are the cause of grave concern for our sulking MP's, intent on trying to stop Brexit any way they can.
The sad thing for them is that the public can read their intentions and do not like it. I agree though, the current predicament is not ideal for Government, but I don't blame the Government for the mess, I blame the saboteurs of democracy, because that's what these tantrum throwing MP's are. And I despise them with a passion.
Comments
I notice that the Remainers in the cabinet (plus Davidson) are all singing the same tune on this - they all say that the EU has to move next. I think that the Govt are showing the signs that they have lost faith in the EU to keep their word - and even if we ever move to Phase 2 that completing an agreement in this environment may be impossible.
Jeez, and people have the nerve to blame Cameron!
So yes. It will cost us a lot more than £10bn
https://www.kommers.se/Documents/dokumentarkiv/publikationer/2015/Publ-economic-effects-of-the-european-single-market.pdf
http://www.amchameu.eu/sites/default/files/amcham_eu_single_market_web.pdf
There is no component of a standard motor car that can't be sourced or manufactured in the EU, although raw materials will come from outside.
It doesn't make economic sense to ship manufactured parts from Japan
Further to that, the EU just can't be trusted. See CAP reform in return for Blair throwing away half the rebate.
Anyway, I must be off.
They may be right. However, as I mentioned, the historical data (which is not based on assumptions) did not show that the establishment of the SM within the EU made any real difference to trade growth or GDP growth within the EU.
I do know that nobody else in the World outside of the EU/EEA has EVER paid billions of dollars for a FTA. Which suggests that they are not worth that much.
Non-tariff barriers are nowadays a far bigger impediment than tariff barriers. Which is also why "access to the Single Market" is very different from "being in the Single Market". Every country in the world has "access" to the Single Market, but to remove the non-tariff barriers, you have to be in the same, single, market.
She’s been absolutely clear that a ball is a ball and a court is a court.
There is no confusion.
NEW THREAD
However, your point lacks logic - you obviously believe that tariffs and customs are important and yet the EU does not have FTAs with most of the World's major economies. So the Brexiteers would be right in suggesting that the costs of WTO trade with the EU might be offset by FTAs with other nations that the UK is far more likely to be able to conclude than the EU. And eventually, after some years no doubt of WTO, the EU will end up agreeing an FTA with the UK as well.
Altogether now "shake, shake, shake the magic money tree".
The sad thing for them is that the public can read their intentions and do not like it. I agree though, the current predicament is not ideal for Government, but I don't blame the Government for the mess, I blame the saboteurs of democracy, because that's what these tantrum throwing MP's are. And I despise them with a passion.