Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay’s plan to enshrine the Brexit date in law looks set to fa

1356

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,766
    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:
    But there is no equivalence

    We export more than 50% of our cars to the EU

    They export less than 10% to us

    A bad day for them is catastrophic for us
    You're right that there is no equivalence.

    We have a huge trade deficit in goods and no real single market in services. The EU has an awfully big market on its doorstep; given their resident's business' success in selling into it, you'd think they'd be a bit more careful about their approach in these negotiations.
    There is a very real single market in financial services. But not, for example, in law.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938
    edited November 2017

    Scott_P said:
    It's been obvious for quite a while that those who told us the EU would be desperate for a deal, the Irish border presented no problems, that the UK holds all the cards and we could have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downside, actually had no clue whatsoever about how the EU works, what WTO rules allow and do not allow and why FTAs get done.

    There's a slight oddity in the Irish border issue, in that it's not really a problem at all for us in the UK - the problem is almost entirely the EU's - if we're willing to be completely and utterly self interested.

    The UK doesn't care if people are smuggled across the Irish border - they can't access services in the North without UK ID, and they can't get across the Irish sea without it either. So there's no draw to NI at all. Goods? Well so what, if there's contraband going across the border the losses will still be insignificant.

    The real issue is whether the Irish will immolate themselves for the EU on the issue of cross border agriculture and trade. We could just simply not charge duties, turn a blind eye, let companies with product that comes out of the south with raw materials or manufacture steps in the north go. Again, the fiscal losses would be insignificant to the exchequer.

    And that would leave the Irish with a big problem (although this isn't a very moral way to conduct ourselves). Do they do the same or follow EU law to the letter and set up border posts? And if they did - how could the EU afford to compensate them at a time when they are just becoming nett contributors to the budget and at the same time almost the largest nett contributor since 1973 has just left a big hole in the pot?
  • I wonder whether the addition of the date and time was an amendment by the government with an eye to potentially failing all along.

    It's a touch Machiavellian but by adding this to the [already very long list] of amendments it has concentrated the Tory rebels on fighting something that was not deemed important enough to be included in the bill originally.

    If this government amendment gets rejected but so too do all the opposition ones ... if the Tory rebels get their pound of flesh with this alone but the government gets its bill through intact ... then the whips will have done a very good job.

    I don't think Mrs May is that bright or nuanced.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 2,801



    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit

    He's assuming Labour's leadership are against Brexit.

    A bit silly, all things considered.
    The mistake which some people make is to think that everyone Cares Passionately about EU membership. I do. You do. Anna Soubry and Bill Cash do. But the Labour leadership don't. They see it as an organisation with practical uses and some potential for good as well as some snags. On balance they're in favour, but it's not crucial to them either way. In that, they resemble many voters.

    Now that's very annoying to all of us who see it as the defining issue of our generation, etc. But it makes it quite easy to reverse an unfinished Brexit process if the opportunity arises and it seems like a good idea. I wouldn't bet on it, but nor would I rule it out. And if it delivered a net 10% gain in voters enabling them to do socialist things they really do care about, then sure, they'll do it.
    Nail on head.

    Most people really don't care much about Brexit either way. It's a big yawn. It rarely comes up in doorstep canvassing. It has not impacted on them. Yet.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938
    rcs1000 said:

    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:
    But there is no equivalence

    We export more than 50% of our cars to the EU

    They export less than 10% to us

    A bad day for them is catastrophic for us
    You're right that there is no equivalence.

    We have a huge trade deficit in goods and no real single market in services. The EU has an awfully big market on its doorstep; given their resident's business' success in selling into it, you'd think they'd be a bit more careful about their approach in these negotiations.
    There is a very real single market in financial services. But not, for example, in law.
    Which countries from outside the EU access on the basis of equivalence in international standards.
  • I wonder whether the addition of the date and time was an amendment by the government with an eye to potentially failing all along.

    It's a touch Machiavellian but by adding this to the [already very long list] of amendments it has concentrated the Tory rebels on fighting something that was not deemed important enough to be included in the bill originally.

    If this government amendment gets rejected but so too do all the opposition ones ... if the Tory rebels get their pound of flesh with this alone but the government gets its bill through intact ... then the whips will have done a very good job.

    I don't think Mrs May is that bright or nuanced.
    It would have been smart though. Perhaps someone in her circle now is a tad brighter?

    The whips have done a very good job when its counted so far.
  • Dyson is a secret farmer. The biggest in UK. Astonishing article in Telegraph (paywall I'm afraid):

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/mind-beeswax-sir-james-dyson-plans-re-invent-british-farming/
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,766

    It seems like a unique agreement is now dead so we seem to have 4 models to look at.

    1. Norway. remain in EU single market but get fish back and no more meps or ability to change EU rules.

    2. Canada. Sign up the best ftas possible with all the main trade blocks such as nafta, EC and apec.

    3. USA. Try go it alone WTO strategy as far as possible.

    4. Stay where we are.

    I am a remainer but there is an argument for the USA option. The existing trade blocs have benefited countries such as Germany which are good at manufacturing but not services. We can use the removal from the trade blocks as a way to rebuild our manufacturing behind trade barriers. why do we need German cars when we can buy jaguars or Astras. We can mandate parts manufacturers such as Bosch to set up in the UK. This will give a big hit to consumer choice but will help to rebuild North England. There is no doubt our global services industries such as education and the city will be hit by the change and the radical change to the economy will cost a fortune but it is a plan. Just not the plan being sold us by Davies and Johnson.

    Autarky has a poor economic record.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 2,801



    Although EEA membership would be the best option economically for the UK, it has rejected it for political reasons.

    Which makes Davis's attack on the EU for putting politics before prosperity look even more idiotic.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,405
    rcs1000 said:

    Mortimer said:

    Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:
    But there is no equivalence

    We export more than 50% of our cars to the EU

    They export less than 10% to us

    A bad day for them is catastrophic for us
    You're right that there is no equivalence.

    We have a huge trade deficit in goods and no real single market in services. The EU has an awfully big market on its doorstep; given their resident's business' success in selling into it, you'd think they'd be a bit more careful about their approach in these negotiations.
    There is a very real single market in financial services. But not, for example, in law.
    Fair point.
  • I wonder whether the addition of the date and time was an amendment by the government with an eye to potentially failing all along.

    It's a touch Machiavellian but by adding this to the [already very long list] of amendments it has concentrated the Tory rebels on fighting something that was not deemed important enough to be included in the bill originally.

    If this government amendment gets rejected but so too do all the opposition ones ... if the Tory rebels get their pound of flesh with this alone but the government gets its bill through intact ... then the whips will have done a very good job.

    I don't think Mrs May is that bright or nuanced.
    It would have been smart though. Perhaps someone in her circle now is a tad brighter?

    The whips have done a very good job when its counted so far.
    Except for this vote.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 47,071

    If this government amendment gets rejected but so too do all the opposition ones ... if the Tory rebels get their pound of flesh with this alone but the government gets its bill through intact ... then the whips will have done a very good job.

    "Government defeated on Brexit vote" is never a headline that can be subbed "the whips will have done a very good job"
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 75,730
    edited November 2017
    Have to say Justice League was as disappointing as the critics said it would be, if not worse.

    Sadly

    1) The bits wrote Joss Whedon wrote/directed and the bits Zak Snyder did.

    2) Comically, you can tell which reshoots Henry Cavill did with his moustache, it made you think those scenes had been directed by Ed Wood.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,405



    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit

    He's assuming Labour's leadership are against Brexit.

    A bit silly, all things considered.
    The mistake which some people make is to think that everyone Cares Passionately about EU membership. I do. You do. Anna Soubry and Bill Cash do. But the Labour leadership don't. They see it as an organisation with practical uses and some potential for good as well as some snags. On balance they're in favour, but it's not crucial to them either way. In that, they resemble many voters.

    Now that's very annoying to all of us who see it as the defining issue of our generation, etc. But it makes it quite easy to reverse an unfinished Brexit process if the opportunity arises and it seems like a good idea. I wouldn't bet on it, but nor would I rule it out. And if it delivered a net 10% gain in voters enabling them to do socialist things they really do care about, then sure, they'll do it.
    Nail on head.

    Most people really don't care much about Brexit either way. It's a big yawn. It rarely comes up in doorstep canvassing. It has not impacted on them. Yet.
    For years issues related to Brexit have come up in my canvassing:

    - Immigration
    - Not being able to make our own laws
    - Not being able to boot out foreign prisoners

    Don't please let us return to this age old myth that 'no-one cares about Europe'. We care deeply, that is why when we had the first opportunity in decades to say no to a converging Brusselian behemoth, we seized it.
  • rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    HtB actually makes things worse, by increasing the amount of money chasing the sy carefully targeted.

    Ultimately the solution to both the Willetts problem and housing is to make holding property unattractive other than as a primary home, and to redistribute from those holding wealth toward those earning income by taxing the former and lifting the tax burden on the latter.

    House prices have almost nothing to do with the supply and demand for houses - therefore building more houses (although necessary) won't make any difference.

    House prices are driven by money supply inflation, since when money is lent for mortgages by commercial banks it is new money that increases the money supply and therefore causes inflation.

    The 'genius' of central bank policy for 20 years now has been to have massive inflation in the economy but direct it to assets rather than consumer goods.

    Inflation in assets is no different than inflation in goods. Both are caused by increased money supply. The only way to stop house prices rising is to restrict the ability of banks to create new money.
    I wouldn't go as far as to say that supply and demand have "almost nothing" to do with the price of houses.

    However, you are certainly correct that money supply is a much big factor than people think. Take London: prices rose 4x between 1995 and 2007, when there was relatively little immigration, but just 40% since, when there was a lot.

    The reason that there is so much money creation is... demand for money. And when I say demand for money, I mean demand for credit. When people borrow money, they create it. We can restrict credit creation through greater controls on banks, or we can restrict it through pushing the savings rate up. In the decade since the financial crisis, successive Chancellors have enacted policies that have deliberately driven down the savings rate - restricting the benefits from ISAs, reducing tax benefits associated with pensions, etc. These kept aggregate demand up, and the UK economy ticking over, but at the expense of an economy that becomes ever more unbalanced.
    That's true. However, isn't it the case that by and large the determining factor in house prices is mortgage repayment levels? The huge rise in house prices between 1995 and 2007 was facilitated by a market in which mortgage interest rates fell hugely, and as banks relaxed their lending ratios on the back of assumptions that low interest rates and rising prices were the new medium-plus term norm, people could afford to borrow much more with repayments eating up no more of their income. It was far from the only source - the expansion (or near-creation) of the BTL market added more money and more buyers to the mix, for example - but it was by far the biggest factor.
  • TonyE said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's been obvious for quite a while that those who told us the EU would be desperate for a deal, the Irish border presented no problems, that the UK holds all the cards and we could have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downside, actually had no clue whatsoever about how the EU works, what WTO rules allow and do not allow and why FTAs get done.

    There's a slight oddity in the Irish border issue, in that it's not really a problem at all for us in the UK - the problem is almost entirely the EU's - if we're willing to be completely and utterly self interested.

    The UK doesn't care if people are smuggled across the Irish border - they can't access services in the North without UK ID, and they can't get across the Irish sea without it either. So there's no draw to NI at all. Goods? Well so what, if there's contraband going across the border the losses will still be insignificant.

    The real issue is whether the Irish will immolate themselves for the EU on the issue of cross border agriculture and trade. We could just simply not charge duties, turn a blind eye, let companies with product that comes out of the south with raw materials or manufacture steps in the north go. Again, the fiscal losses would be insignificant to the exchequer.

    And that would leave the Irish with a big problem (although this isn't a very moral way to conduct ourselves). Do they do the same or follow EU law to the letter and set up border posts? And if they did - how could the EU afford to compensate them at a time when they are just becoming nett contributors to the budget and at the same time almost the largest nett contributor since 1973 has just left a big hole in the pot?

    That means a No Deal Brexit - the kind where the planes do not fly - and that hurts us a huge amount.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,875
    rcs1000 said:

    It seems like a unique agreement is now dead so we seem to have 4 models to look at.

    1. Norway. remain in EU single market but get fish back and no more meps or ability to change EU rules.

    2. Canada. Sign up the best ftas possible with all the main trade blocks such as nafta, EC and apec.

    3. USA. Try go it alone WTO strategy as far as possible.

    4. Stay where we are.

    I am a remainer but there is an argument for the USA option. The existing trade blocs have benefited countries such as Germany which are good at manufacturing but not services. We can use the removal from the trade blocks as a way to rebuild our manufacturing behind trade barriers. why do we need German cars when we can buy jaguars or Astras. We can mandate parts manufacturers such as Bosch to set up in the UK. This will give a big hit to consumer choice but will help to rebuild North England. There is no doubt our global services industries such as education and the city will be hit by the change and the radical change to the economy will cost a fortune but it is a plan. Just not the plan being sold us by Davies and Johnson.

    Autarky has a poor economic record.
    주체
  • marke09 said:

    Yasmin Alibhai-Brown tells Sky she would rather be Robert Mugabe than Theresa May at the moment because of "that whole Brexit thing". Searing analysis.

    Mugabe will be fortunate to not 'die of old age' in the next month if he doesn't agree an exit plan.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    While I think five years is too long, it is worth remembering that there was a seven year transition period when the UK joined the EEC.

    Spain and Portugal got six, I believe.

  • Scott_P said:

    If this government amendment gets rejected but so too do all the opposition ones ... if the Tory rebels get their pound of flesh with this alone but the government gets its bill through intact ... then the whips will have done a very good job.

    "Government defeated on Brexit vote" is never a headline that can be subbed "the whips will have done a very good job"
    Of course it is if this was viewed as a feint, while the substantive bill goes through.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938



    Although EEA membership would be the best option economically for the UK, it has rejected it for political reasons.

    Which makes Davis's attack on the EU for putting politics before prosperity look even more idiotic.
    That might make sense if we had started from a position where EEA had not been thoroughly discredited by the remain campaign - starting with Cameron's speech in Iceland in the December before the vote. But remain has boxed everyone in by telling what amounted to outright lies about the easiest way to leave - and the lies have been believed largely by both sides in the public arena.

    Cameron and Osborne killed soft Brexit, then ran away like scolded children. The ultimate act of cowardice and irresponsibility.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 14,972
    Another fiasco from Theresa.

    Time for Tory Brexiteers to assert themselves and throw May off the cliff.
  • TOPPING said:



    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit

    He's assuming Labour's leadership are against Brexit.

    A bit silly, all things considered.
    The mistake which some people make is to think that everyone Cares Passionately about EU membership. I do. You do. Anna Soubry and Bill Cash do. But the Labour leadership don't. They see it as an organisation with practical uses and some potential for good as well as some snags. On balance they're in favour, but it's not crucial to them either way. In that, they resemble many voters.

    Now that's very annoying to all of us who see it as the defining issue of our generation, etc. But it makes it quite easy to reverse an unfinished Brexit process if the opportunity arises and it seems like a good idea. I wouldn't bet on it, but nor would I rule it out. And if it delivered a net 10% gain in voters enabling them to do socialist things they really do care about, then sure, they'll do it.
    Exactly - I almost wrote "the next GE won't be a Brexit GE" but didn't, because, er, it might be. But the point is, which you make, is that Labour can maintain the flexibility by keeping Brexit in the background, being as non-committal as they need and then emerge, say, in 20XX, in power, and say: Right, this is what is happening.

    What Labour needs to be able to do at the next election is to say that we respected the Brexit vote but we would not have left in the way that the Tories did.
  • I am asking Shadsy and Paddy Power to price up a market.

    Who will leave office first.

    Theresa May or Robert Mugabe.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 47,071
    TonyE said:

    That might make sense if we had started from a position where EEA had not been thoroughly discredited by the remain campaign

    LOL

    EEA is worse than we have now

    And better than we are going to end up with

    And you blame the people who told you so. None so blind...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 47,071

    What Labour needs to be able to do at the next election is to say that we respected the Brexit vote but we would not have left in the way that the Tories did.

    That is also going to be the pitch from whoever takes over from Tezza.

    "Yes, Brexit is crap, but it would have been great if only we had followed MY Brexit plan"
  • So we're all agreed then: Brexit is turning into a bit of a bugger's muddle.
  • Dyson is a secret farmer. The biggest in UK. Astonishing article in Telegraph (paywall I'm afraid):

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/mind-beeswax-sir-james-dyson-plans-re-invent-british-farming/

    Yep, billionaire patriot James Dyson - who runs a hugely successful high-tech manufacturing operation out of the Far East - is adamant he needs to retain his UK farming subsidies post-Brexit:

    http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/brexiteer-dyson-warns-government-not-cut-farm-subsidies.htm

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,527

    Dyson is a secret farmer. The biggest in UK. Astonishing article in Telegraph (paywall I'm afraid):

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/mind-beeswax-sir-james-dyson-plans-re-invent-british-farming/

    Not astonishing at all. Our cheerleading Brexiter is taking advantage of all that the UK tax system has to offer.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938

    TonyE said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's been obvious for quite a while that those who told us the EU would be desperate for a deal, the Irish border presented no problems, that the UK holds all the cards and we could have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downside, actually had no clue whatsoever about how the EU works, what WTO rules allow and do not allow and why FTAs get done.

    There's a slight oddity in the Irish border issue, in that it's not really a problem at all for us in the UK - the problem is almost entirely the EU's - if we're willing to be completely and utterly self interested.

    The UK doesn't care if people are smuggled across the Irish border - they can't access services in the North without UK ID, and they can't get across the Irish sea without it either. So there's no draw to NI at all. Goods? Well so what, if there's contraband going across the border the losses will still be insignificant.

    The real issue is whether the Irish will immolate themselves for the EU on the issue of cross border agriculture and trade. We could just simply not charge duties, turn a blind eye, let companies with product that comes out of the south with raw materials or manufacture steps in the north go. Again, the fiscal losses would be insignificant to the exchequer.

    And that would leave the Irish with a big problem (although this isn't a very moral way to conduct ourselves). Do they do the same or follow EU law to the letter and set up border posts? And if they did - how could the EU afford to compensate them at a time when they are just becoming nett contributors to the budget and at the same time almost the largest nett contributor since 1973 has just left a big hole in the pot?

    That means a No Deal Brexit - the kind where the planes do not fly - and that hurts us a huge amount.
    I didn't say we wouldn't agree to it, just that we wouldn't enforce movement in our direction. Then you're daring the other side to enforce it, or tear up the whole thing? Like I said, not very moral, but not entirely unheard of...
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 2,801
    TonyE said:



    Although EEA membership would be the best option economically for the UK, it has rejected it for political reasons.

    Which makes Davis's attack on the EU for putting politics before prosperity look even more idiotic.
    That might make sense if we had started from a position where EEA had not been thoroughly discredited by the remain campaign - starting with Cameron's speech in Iceland in the December before the vote. But remain has boxed everyone in by telling what amounted to outright lies about the easiest way to leave - and the lies have been believed largely by both sides in the public arena.

    Cameron and Osborne killed soft Brexit, then ran away like scolded children. The ultimate act of cowardice and irresponsibility.
    Cameron and Osborne made absolutely no preparations for any kind of Brexit. They came out with a lot of b*llocks during the referendum campaign but they weren't unique in that respect. The leavers are in charge now - if they don't deliver on their promises there will be nowhere for them to hide.
  • The Westminster sleaze scandal has resulted in many awkward conversations having to be had across Parliament. However, at yesterday’s Press Gallery lunch, David Lidington was on hand to let it be known that this in itself is nothing new.

    Back when the Tories were in Opposition, the Conservative MP was tasked with updating Ann Widdecombe, then shadow home secretary, on which sexual offences that would be covered by a new piece of legislation:

    ‘I went through cottaging, cruising, incest, bestiality,’ he told a room full of lobby hacks. Widdecombe’s reaction? ‘Her eyebrows were getting higher as her jaw dropped lower’. Happily the pair were saved by the bell when Ann’s phone started ringing with La donna e mobile ringing out. As she went to leave, she brought the topic to a close for good: ‘As far as I’m concerned, they all should be banned.’

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/david-lidington-is-saved-by-the-bell/
  • Scott_P said:

    What Labour needs to be able to do at the next election is to say that we respected the Brexit vote but we would not have left in the way that the Tories did.

    That is also going to be the pitch from whoever takes over from Tezza.

    "Yes, Brexit is crap, but it would have been great if only we had followed MY Brexit plan"

    The problem for the Tories is that they own the Brexit we are getting. It will be tough for JRM or Boris or whoever it is to disown the Hard Brexit they were advocating.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 47,071
    TonyE said:

    I didn't say we wouldn't agree to it, just that we wouldn't enforce movement in our direction.

    TAKE BACK CONTROL OF OUR BORDERS.

    No, not that one...
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,380
    Scott_P said:

    What Labour needs to be able to do at the next election is to say that we respected the Brexit vote but we would not have left in the way that the Tories did.

    That is also going to be the pitch from whoever takes over from Tezza.

    "Yes, Brexit is crap, but it would have been great if only we had followed MY Brexit plan"
    That's why I have such total contempt for the likes of Gisela Stuart and Nigel Farage - who got what they wanted then ran away as soon as concept had to turn into implementation. And also a grudging respect for Boris Johnson - the temptation to do the same must be strong (and may well prove irresistable) but to date he's sticking in there and trying to find a way to make the impossible work.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 47,071

    It will be tough for JRM or Boris or whoever it is to disown the Hard Brexit they were advocating.

    JRM perhaps, but BoZo can disown a speech while he is making it
  • Dyson is a secret farmer. The biggest in UK. Astonishing article in Telegraph (paywall I'm afraid):

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/mind-beeswax-sir-james-dyson-plans-re-invent-british-farming/

    What a great advert he is for capitalism and Brexit.
  • TonyE said:

    TonyE said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's been obvious for quite a while that those who told us the EU would be desperate for a deal, the Irish border presented no problems, that the UK holds all the cards and we could have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downside, actually had no clue whatsoever about how the EU works, what WTO rules allow and do not allow and why FTAs get done.

    There's a slight oddity in the Irish border issue, in that it's not really a problem at all for us in the UK - the problem is almost entirely the EU's - if we're willing to be completely and utterly self interested.

    The UK doesn't care if people are smuggled across the Irish border - they can't access services in the North without UK ID, and they can't get across the Irish sea without it either. So there's no draw to NI at all. Goods? Well so what, if there's contraband going across the border the losses will still be insignificant.

    The real issue is whether the Irish will immolate themselves for the EU on the issue of cross border agriculture and trade. We could just simply not charge duties, turn a blind eye, let companies with product that comes out of the south with raw materials or manufacture steps in the north go. Again, the fiscal losses would be insignificant to the exchequer.

    And that would leave the Irish with a big problem (although this isn't a very moral way to conduct ourselves). Do they do the same or follow EU law to the letter and set up border posts? And if they did - how could the EU afford to compensate them at a time when they are just becoming nett contributors to the budget and at the same time almost the largest nett contributor since 1973 has just left a big hole in the pot?

    That means a No Deal Brexit - the kind where the planes do not fly - and that hurts us a huge amount.
    I didn't say we wouldn't agree to it, just that we wouldn't enforce movement in our direction. Then you're daring the other side to enforce it, or tear up the whole thing? Like I said, not very moral, but not entirely unheard of...

    If the UK breaches an agreement so blatantly, good luck with getting further agreements with other countries. You can also be pretty sure that the EU would want the agreement that we had with them to be revisited. The EU has to enforce WTO rules, so it has no option but to enforce a border. If it didn't, it would be open to action. That's one of the reasons why a solution is so important to them.

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,537
    TonyE said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's been obvious for quite a while that those who told us the EU would be desperate for a deal, the Irish border presented no problems, that the UK holds all the cards and we could have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downside, actually had no clue whatsoever about how the EU works, what WTO rules allow and do not allow and why FTAs get done.

    There's a slight oddity in the Irish border issue, in that it's not really a problem at all for us in the UK - the problem is almost entirely the EU's - if we're willing to be completely and utterly self interested.

    The UK doesn't care if people are smuggled across the Irish border - they can't access services in the North without UK ID, and they can't get across the Irish sea without it either. So there's no draw to NI at all. Goods? Well so what, if there's contraband going across the border the losses will still be insignificant.

    The real issue is whether the Irish will immolate themselves for the EU on the issue of cross border agriculture and trade. We could just simply not charge duties, turn a blind eye, let companies with product that comes out of the south with raw materials or manufacture steps in the north go. Again, the fiscal losses would be insignificant to the exchequer.

    And that would leave the Irish with a big problem (although this isn't a very moral way to conduct ourselves). Do they do the same or follow EU law to the letter and set up border posts? And if they did - how could the EU afford to compensate them at a time when they are just becoming nett contributors to the budget and at the same time almost the largest nett contributor since 1973 has just left a big hole in the pot?
    Mr E, you are right - the border problem is principally one for Ireland and the EU. This begins to loom large as a clean Brexit looks more likely. If the UK abolishes customs duties across the board (free trade) then the onus is on the EU to set up and police the border. What is a "slight oddity" to me is the position Leo Varadkar has adopted, that the island of Ireland remains within the EU customs union and single market. This of course pushes the effective border to the Irish sea, which Kenneth Clark has argued. But that is not an acceptable to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Varadkar would make more headway pushing the EU for a free trade deal with the UK post Brexit.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 7,406
    Scott_P said:

    The answer is obvious, give Northern Ireland to the Republic.

    Easiest Brexit decision ever...
    Northern Ireland would declare UDI first.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,936

    Dyson is a secret farmer. The biggest in UK. Astonishing article in Telegraph (paywall I'm afraid):

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/mind-beeswax-sir-james-dyson-plans-re-invent-british-farming/

    What a great advert he is for capitalism and Brexit.
    Dyson sucks.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938
    Scott_P said:

    TonyE said:

    That might make sense if we had started from a position where EEA had not been thoroughly discredited by the remain campaign

    LOL

    EEA is worse than we have now

    And better than we are going to end up with

    And you blame the people who told you so. None so blind...
    And you're still lying about it. EEA is better than what we have now because it allows us significant political freedom, and we can leave it without negotiation if we feel free to do so. There is no 'Art 50' and no bill. There is also no fax democracy - Norway has allowed every regulation to go into the Annex by choice (it hasn't used the right of reservation often, it uses that lie to press the idea of full membership on an unwilling public).

    There's no ECJ, no CFP, no CAP, no compulsion for the EAW. The arbiter EFTA court has UK participation, and we are free to enter into any trade negotiation we like anywhere in the world.

    The common external tariff doesn't apply to EEA, nor the common commercial policy - UK regains its independence on world bodies. There is no EEA military program.

    The downside is that we still have to follow the regulations that we already allowed to be put into it - but we are in a position to accept no further movement on issues that we don't want. FOM will still exist, but we can use Art 112 and dare the EU to take requisite action. This would have to pass a proportionality test, so would probably also have to be in the movement field.

    So most of what has been said about the EEA solution as an interim position has been outright rubbish.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 4,364
    edited November 2017
    The Leavers desperately need to shift the blame for Brexit on to the Remain side, preferably George Osborne. Just say that the Evening Standard editorials and the Adams cartoons have destroyed Theresa's reputation abroad, diminishing her authority to get a good deal. That might sound far fetched, but politically the Leavers can't afford to look like incompetent nincompoops. Just say anything!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,766
    tpfkar said:

    Scott_P said:

    What Labour needs to be able to do at the next election is to say that we respected the Brexit vote but we would not have left in the way that the Tories did.

    That is also going to be the pitch from whoever takes over from Tezza.

    "Yes, Brexit is crap, but it would have been great if only we had followed MY Brexit plan"
    That's why I have such total contempt for the likes of Gisela Stuart and Nigel Farage - who got what they wanted then ran away as soon as concept had to turn into implementation. And also a grudging respect for Boris Johnson - the temptation to do the same must be strong (and may well prove irresistable) but to date he's sticking in there and trying to find a way to make the impossible work.
    Nigel had more important work to do: like stumping for Judge Roy Moore.
  • Scott_P said:
    That won't go down well with the hardcore Leavers. How long before we hear threats to take away their potatoes?
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938
    geoffw said:

    TonyE said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's been obvious for quite a while that those who told us the EU would be desperate for a deal, the Irish border presented no problems, that the UK holds all the cards and we could have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downside, actually had no clue whatsoever about how the EU works, what WTO rules allow and do not allow and why FTAs get done.

    There's a slight oddity in the Irish border issue, in that it's not really a problem at all for us in the UK - the problem is almost entirely the EU's - if we're willing to be completely and utterly self interested.

    The UK doesn't care if people are smuggled across the Irish border - they can't access services in the North without UK ID, and they can't get across the Irish sea without it either. So there's no draw to NI at all. Goods? Well so what, if there's contraband going across the border the losses will still be insignificant.

    The real issue is whether the Irish will immolate themselves for the EU on the issue of cross border agriculture and trade. We could just simply not charge duties, turn a blind eye, let companies with product that comes out of the south with raw materials or manufacture steps in the north go. Again, the fiscal losses would be insignificant to the exchequer.

    And that would leave the Irish with a big problem (although this isn't a very moral way to conduct ourselves). Do they do the same or follow EU law to the letter and set up border posts? And if they did - how could the EU afford to compensate them at a time when they are just becoming nett contributors to the budget and at the same time almost the largest nett contributor since 1973 has just left a big hole in the pot?
    Mr E, you are right - the border problem is principally one for Ireland and the EU. This begins to loom large as a clean Brexit looks more likely. If the UK abolishes customs duties across the board (free trade) then the onus is on the EU to set up and police the border. What is a "slight oddity" to me is the position Leo Varadkar has adopted, that the island of Ireland remains within the EU customs union and single market. This of course pushes the effective border to the Irish sea, which Kenneth Clark has argued. But that is not an acceptable to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Varadkar would make more headway pushing the EU for a free trade deal with the UK post Brexit.
    The only thing I'd add there is that UK can't abolish tariffs across the Irish border without doing so across whole WTO. So the option would be to charge the tariff (in theory), but rely on goodwill and TIR for its payment.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938
    Scott_P said:

    TonyE said:

    I didn't say we wouldn't agree to it, just that we wouldn't enforce movement in our direction.

    TAKE BACK CONTROL OF OUR BORDERS.

    No, not that one...
    Yeah, I can see the irony (I was an EEA advocate in the campaign). But then the EU is playing a hard game, so what's sauce for the goose...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,766
    TonyE said:

    The only thing I'd add there is that UK can't abolish tariffs across the Irish border without doing so across whole WTO. So the option would be to charge the tariff (in theory), but rely on goodwill and TIR for its payment.

    The problem with abolishing all tariffs (which is a good thing), is that it removes the incentive for other countries to enter into FTAs with us. And this is a particular issue, because it is not reducing tariffs that is the biggest benefit of FTAs, but the removal of NTBs.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,759
    edited November 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    tpfkar said:

    Scott_P said:

    What Labour needs to be able to do at the next election is to say that we respected the Brexit vote but we would not have left in the way that the Tories did.

    That is also going to be the pitch from whoever takes over from Tezza.

    "Yes, Brexit is crap, but it would have been great if only we had followed MY Brexit plan"
    That's why I have such total contempt for the likes of Gisela Stuart and Nigel Farage - who got what they wanted then ran away as soon as concept had to turn into implementation. And also a grudging respect for Boris Johnson - the temptation to do the same must be strong (and may well prove irresistable) but to date he's sticking in there and trying to find a way to make the impossible work.
    Nigel had more important work to do: like stumping for Judge Roy Moore.
    He's a cricketer ?
    Just goes to show that even the worst amongst us aren't without a single redeeming feature...

    Speaking of which, anyone put money on the Ashes yet ?
    Australia are looking a little unsettled.

    (edit - and can we please agree to call him Farage.)
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,936
    It will be an interesting counter-factual for us to debate in future.

    What if the Leavers implementing Brexit had not been incompetent nincompoops?
  • geoffw said:

    TonyE said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's been obvious for quite a while that those who told us the EU would be desperate for a deal, the Irish border presented no problems, that the UK holds all the cards and we could have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downside, actually had no clue whatsoever about how the EU works, what WTO rules allow and do not allow and why FTAs get done.

    There's a slight oddity in the Irish border issue, in that it's not really a problem at all for us in the UK - the problem is almost entirely the EU's - if we're willing to be completely and utterly self interested.

    The UK doesn't care if people are smuggled across the Irish border - they can't access services in the North without UK ID, and they can't get across the Irish sea without it either. So there's no draw to NI at all. Goods? Well so what, if there's contraband going across the border the losses will still be insignificant.

    The real issue is whether the Irish will immolate themselves for the EU on the issue of cross border agriculture and trade. We could just simply not charge duties, turn a blind eye, let companies with product that comes out of the south with raw materials or manufacture steps in the north go. Again, the fiscal losses would be insignificant to the exchequer.

    And that would leave the Irish with a big problem (although this isn't a very moral way to conduct ourselves). Do they do the same or follow EU law to the letter and set up border posts? And if they did - how could the EU afford to compensate them at a time when they are just becoming nett contributors to the budget and at the same time almost the largest nett contributor since 1973 has just left a big hole in the pot?
    Mr E, you are right - the border problem is principally one for Ireland and the EU. This begins to loom large as a clean Brexit looks more likely. If the UK abolishes customs duties across the board (free trade) then the onus is on the EU to set up and police the border. What is a "slight oddity" to me is the position Leo Varadkar has adopted, that the island of Ireland remains within the EU customs union and single market. This of course pushes the effective border to the Irish sea, which Kenneth Clark has argued. But that is not an acceptable to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Varadkar would make more headway pushing the EU for a free trade deal with the UK post Brexit.

    No resolution to the Irish border issue means the UK crashing out of the EU. The idea that this is more of a problem for Ireland than the UK is risible.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 47,071
    Jonathan said:

    It will be an interesting counter-factual for us to debate in future.

    What if the Leavers implementing Brexit had not been incompetent nincompoops?

    They would have delivered BINO
  • Jonathan said:

    It will be an interesting counter-factual for us to debate in future.

    What if the Leavers implementing Brexit had not been incompetent nincompoops?

    Who are these competent non-nincompoops of whom you speak?
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,537
    rcs1000 said:

    TonyE said:

    The only thing I'd add there is that UK can't abolish tariffs across the Irish border without doing so across whole WTO. So the option would be to charge the tariff (in theory), but rely on goodwill and TIR for its payment.

    The problem with abolishing all tariffs (which is a good thing), is that it removes the incentive for other countries to enter into FTAs with us. And this is a particular issue, because it is not reducing tariffs that is the biggest benefit of FTAs, but the removal of NTBs.
    Since we already abide by the rules and regulations of the internal market, any non-tariff barriers that might affect us would have to be new ones cooked up by the EU.
  • rcs1000 said:

    TonyE said:

    The only thing I'd add there is that UK can't abolish tariffs across the Irish border without doing so across whole WTO. So the option would be to charge the tariff (in theory), but rely on goodwill and TIR for its payment.

    The problem with abolishing all tariffs (which is a good thing), is that it removes the incentive for other countries to enter into FTAs with us. And this is a particular issue, because it is not reducing tariffs that is the biggest benefit of FTAs, but the removal of NTBs.
    There was good article in the Telegraph which destroyed this idea. If we abolish tarrifs we close down our industry without any guarantee that we get access to export markets. In the long term maybe our trade partners reciprocate but before then we are bust.



  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 47,071
    geoffw said:

    Since we already abide by the rules and regulations of the internal market, any non-tariff barriers that might affect us would have to be new ones cooked up by the EU.

    But our signatories lapse...

    Without a new piece of paper, all NTBs apply. Like open Skies
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,766
    geoffw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TonyE said:

    The only thing I'd add there is that UK can't abolish tariffs across the Irish border without doing so across whole WTO. So the option would be to charge the tariff (in theory), but rely on goodwill and TIR for its payment.

    The problem with abolishing all tariffs (which is a good thing), is that it removes the incentive for other countries to enter into FTAs with us. And this is a particular issue, because it is not reducing tariffs that is the biggest benefit of FTAs, but the removal of NTBs.
    Since we already abide by the rules and regulations of the internal market, any non-tariff barriers that might affect us would have to be new ones cooked up by the EU.
    I wasn't specifically thinking of the EU, but more generally. The biggest NTBs we would face in a WTO but zero tariff world would be in legal and financial services. I can't believe we'd allow non-UK regulated firms to offer financial services to UK citizens, and I suspect the EU would have similar issues.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,527

    rcs1000 said:

    TonyE said:

    The only thing I'd add there is that UK can't abolish tariffs across the Irish border without doing so across whole WTO. So the option would be to charge the tariff (in theory), but rely on goodwill and TIR for its payment.

    The problem with abolishing all tariffs (which is a good thing), is that it removes the incentive for other countries to enter into FTAs with us. And this is a particular issue, because it is not reducing tariffs that is the biggest benefit of FTAs, but the removal of NTBs.
    There was good article in the Telegraph which destroyed this idea. If we abolish tarrifs we close down our industry without any guarantee that we get access to export markets. In the long term maybe our trade partners reciprocate but before then we are bust.
    As I remember it, Minford was intensely relaxed about our industry closing down, given that he saw benefits to the UK elsewhere from having zero tariffs.
  • rcs1000 said:

    TonyE said:

    The only thing I'd add there is that UK can't abolish tariffs across the Irish border without doing so across whole WTO. So the option would be to charge the tariff (in theory), but rely on goodwill and TIR for its payment.

    The problem with abolishing all tariffs (which is a good thing), is that it removes the incentive for other countries to enter into FTAs with us. And this is a particular issue, because it is not reducing tariffs that is the biggest benefit of FTAs, but the removal of NTBs.
    There was good article in the Telegraph which destroyed this idea. If we abolish tarrifs we close down our industry as we have no guarantee that we get access to export markets. In the long term maybe our trade partners reciprocate but before then we are bust.

    There was a nobel prize awarded on this subject based on the prisoner dilema. In essence if we play by the rules and the other person doesnt we go to prison and he gets off. The only winning strategy is tit for tat.


  • geoffw said:

    TonyE said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's been obvious for quite a while that those who told us the EU would be desperate for a deal, the Irish border presented no problems, that the UK holds all the cards and we could have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downside, actually had no clue whatsoever about how the EU works, what WTO rules allow and do not allow and why FTAs get done.

    There's a slight oddity in the Irish border issue, in that it's not really a problem at all for us in the UK - the problem is almost entirely the EU's - if we're willing to be completely and utterly self interested.

    The UK doesn't care if people are smuggled across the Irish border - they can't access services in the North without UK ID, and they can't get across the Irish sea without it either. So there's no draw to NI at all. Goods? Well so what, if there's contraband going across the border the losses will still be insignificant.

    The real issue is whether the Irish will immolate themselves for the EU on the issue of cross border agriculture and trade. We could just simply not charge duties, turn a blind eye, let companies with product that comes out of the south with raw materials or manufacture steps in the north go. Again, the fiscal losses would be insignificant to the exchequer.

    And that would leave the Irish with a big problem (although this isn't a very moral way to conduct ourselves). Do they do the same or follow EU law to the letter and set up border posts? And if they did - how could the EU afford to compensate them at a time when they are just becoming nett contributors to the budget and at the same time almost the largest nett contributor since 1973 has just left a big hole in the pot?
    Mr E, you are right - the border problem is principally one for Ireland and the EU. This begins to loom large as a clean Brexit looks more likely. If the UK abolishes customs duties across the board (free trade) then the onus is on the EU to set up and police the border. What is a "slight oddity" to me is the position Leo Varadkar has adopted, that the island of Ireland remains within the EU customs union and single market. This of course pushes the effective border to the Irish sea, which Kenneth Clark has argued. But that is not an acceptable to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Varadkar would make more headway pushing the EU for a free trade deal with the UK post Brexit.
    The idea that the UK would or could entirely abolish customs duties after Brexit is insane. It would destroy most of our remaining manufacturing industry at a stroke. And very heavily damage agriculture and other sectors too.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 2,801
    tpfkar said:

    Scott_P said:

    What Labour needs to be able to do at the next election is to say that we respected the Brexit vote but we would not have left in the way that the Tories did.

    That is also going to be the pitch from whoever takes over from Tezza.

    "Yes, Brexit is crap, but it would have been great if only we had followed MY Brexit plan"
    That's why I have such total contempt for the likes of Gisela Stuart and Nigel Farage - who got what they wanted then ran away as soon as concept had to turn into implementation. And also a grudging respect for Boris Johnson - the temptation to do the same must be strong (and may well prove irresistable) but to date he's sticking in there and trying to find a way to make the impossible work.
    It's quite striking how the political forces advocating Brexit have declined in the past year. UKIP? Virtually invisible. Bojo? A risible figure whose political demise is obvious to all except him. The Brexit press? Still ranting but their contributions have taken on a slightly desperate tone and they no longer go unchallenged.

    Public advocacy for Brexit now comes only from the Tory backbenches and a minority of ministers and that will not be enough to save the process if and when it collapses.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    I can't believe none of the remainers warned us about the impending bee attacks.
  • rcs1000 said:

    TonyE said:

    The only thing I'd add there is that UK can't abolish tariffs across the Irish border without doing so across whole WTO. So the option would be to charge the tariff (in theory), but rely on goodwill and TIR for its payment.

    The problem with abolishing all tariffs (which is a good thing), is that it removes the incentive for other countries to enter into FTAs with us. And this is a particular issue, because it is not reducing tariffs that is the biggest benefit of FTAs, but the removal of NTBs.
    There was good article in the Telegraph which destroyed this idea. If we abolish tarrifs we close down our industry without any guarantee that we get access to export markets. In the long term maybe our trade partners reciprocate but before then we are bust.



    Exactly
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,537
    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TonyE said:

    The only thing I'd add there is that UK can't abolish tariffs across the Irish border without doing so across whole WTO. So the option would be to charge the tariff (in theory), but rely on goodwill and TIR for its payment.

    The problem with abolishing all tariffs (which is a good thing), is that it removes the incentive for other countries to enter into FTAs with us. And this is a particular issue, because it is not reducing tariffs that is the biggest benefit of FTAs, but the removal of NTBs.
    There was good article in the Telegraph which destroyed this idea. If we abolish tarrifs we close down our industry without any guarantee that we get access to export markets. In the long term maybe our trade partners reciprocate but before then we are bust.
    As I remember it, Minford was intensely relaxed about our industry closing down, given that he saw benefits to the UK elsewhere from having zero tariffs.
    Consumers benefit, producers protected by the tariff barrier lose out.
  • Scott_P said:

    geoffw said:

    Since we already abide by the rules and regulations of the internal market, any non-tariff barriers that might affect us would have to be new ones cooked up by the EU.

    But our signatories lapse...

    Without a new piece of paper, all NTBs apply. Like open Skies

    Yep - with a No Deal Brexit Ireland remains a signatory to 750 plus trade and regulatory agreements thanks to its EU membership. The UK does not.

    And crashing out of the EU and shitting all over Ireland would ensure that the UK never gets a trade hearing in the US.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,766
    HHemmelig said:

    The idea that the UK would or could entirely abolish customs duties after Brexit is insane. It would destroy most of our remaining manufacturing industry at a stroke. And very heavily damage agriculture and other sectors too.

    I don't think that's true. Don't forget that lots of UK companies use imported components in their products, so their cost of manufacture would fall in the event of a zero tariff world.

    The biggest issue - to me at least - is that thanks to price elasticity of demand, we would see our savings rate drop further.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 2,801
    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TonyE said:

    The only thing I'd add there is that UK can't abolish tariffs across the Irish border without doing so across whole WTO. So the option would be to charge the tariff (in theory), but rely on goodwill and TIR for its payment.

    The problem with abolishing all tariffs (which is a good thing), is that it removes the incentive for other countries to enter into FTAs with us. And this is a particular issue, because it is not reducing tariffs that is the biggest benefit of FTAs, but the removal of NTBs.
    There was good article in the Telegraph which destroyed this idea. If we abolish tarrifs we close down our industry without any guarantee that we get access to export markets. In the long term maybe our trade partners reciprocate but before then we are bust.
    As I remember it, Minford was intensely relaxed about our industry closing down, given that he saw benefits to the UK elsewhere from having zero tariffs.
    IIRC Minford predicted that introducing a minimum wage would lead to mass unemployment. His views, therefore, should be viewed with an appropriate level of scepticism.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617
    edited November 2017
    geoffw said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TonyE said:

    The only thing I'd add there is that UK can't abolish tariffs across the Irish border without doing so across whole WTO. So the option would be to charge the tariff (in theory), but rely on goodwill and TIR for its payment.

    The problem with abolishing all tariffs (which is a good thing), is that it removes the incentive for other countries to enter into FTAs with us. And this is a particular issue, because it is not reducing tariffs that is the biggest benefit of FTAs, but the removal of NTBs.
    There was good article in the Telegraph which destroyed this idea. If we abolish tarrifs we close down our industry without any guarantee that we get access to export markets. In the long term maybe our trade partners reciprocate but before then we are bust.
    As I remember it, Minford was intensely relaxed about our industry closing down, given that he saw benefits to the UK elsewhere from having zero tariffs.
    Consumers benefit, producers protected by the tariff barrier lose out.
    What an idiot Minford is. How can you have an economy where everyone is a consumer and nobody is a producer. There will be no wealth to pay for the consumption.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 11,179
    I'm going to be impressed by SindyRef2 arguments which say England must give Scotland a brilliant trade deal because of all the trade Scotland does with England.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 11,551
    Mortimer said:



    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit

    He's assuming Labour's leadership are against Brexit.

    A bit silly, all things considered.
    The mistake which some people make is to think that everyone Cares Passionately about EU membership. I do. You do. Anna Soubry and Bill Cash do. But the Labour leadership don't. They see it as an organisation with practical uses and some potential for good as well as some snags. On balance they're in favour, but it's not crucial to them either way. In that, they resemble many voters.

    Now that's very annoying to all of us who see it as the defining issue of our generation, etc. But it makes it quite easy to reverse an unfinished Brexit process if the opportunity arises and it seems like a good idea. I wouldn't bet on it, but nor would I rule it out. And if it delivered a net 10% gain in voters enabling them to do socialist things they really do care about, then sure, they'll do it.
    Nail on head.

    Most people really don't care much about Brexit either way. It's a big yawn. It rarely comes up in doorstep canvassing. It has not impacted on them. Yet.
    For years issues related to Brexit have come up in my canvassing:

    - Immigration
    - Not being able to make our own laws
    - Not being able to boot out foreign prisoners

    Don't please let us return to this age old myth that 'no-one cares about Europe'. We care deeply, that is why when we had the first opportunity in decades to say no to a converging Brusselian behemoth, we seized it.
    What particular laws do you feel the EU are preventing us from making?
  • rcs1000 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    The idea that the UK would or could entirely abolish customs duties after Brexit is insane. It would destroy most of our remaining manufacturing industry at a stroke. And very heavily damage agriculture and other sectors too.

    I don't think that's true. Don't forget that lots of UK companies use imported components in their products, so their cost of manufacture would fall in the event of a zero tariff world.

    The biggest issue - to me at least - is that thanks to price elasticity of demand, we would see our savings rate drop further.

    It wouldn't be a zero tariff world though, would it?

    It's kind of like the argument we used to get about unilateral nuclear disarmament - if the UK did it, everyone else would follow. Yeah, right.

  • Sir Humphrey explains Brexit

  • rcs1000 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    The idea that the UK would or could entirely abolish customs duties after Brexit is insane. It would destroy most of our remaining manufacturing industry at a stroke. And very heavily damage agriculture and other sectors too.

    I don't think that's true. Don't forget that lots of UK companies use imported components in their products, so their cost of manufacture would fall in the event of a zero tariff world.

    The biggest issue - to me at least - is that thanks to price elasticity of demand, we would see our savings rate drop further.
    Do you seriously think that Toyota or Nissan in the UK could prosper if their exports to EU (more than 50% of their output) had a 10% EU import duty slapped on them, whilst UK consumers were still free to buy from VW, BMW etc at an unchanged price? And though price of the components is one potential benefit, the red tape of the customs checks wrecking the just in time value chain may make it irrelevant. You do increasingly sound like a very clever guy who is embarrassed about making a stupid decision to vote Leave.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,537
    rcs1000 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    The idea that the UK would or could entirely abolish customs duties after Brexit is insane. It would destroy most of our remaining manufacturing industry at a stroke. And very heavily damage agriculture and other sectors too.

    I don't think that's true. Don't forget that lots of UK companies use imported components in their products, so their cost of manufacture would fall in the event of a zero tariff world.

    The biggest issue - to me at least - is that thanks to price elasticity of demand, we would see our savings rate drop further.
    I don't understand this last point. Can you explain?
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,537
    HHemmelig said:

    geoffw said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TonyE said:

    The only thing I'd add there is that UK can't abolish tariffs across the Irish border without doing so across whole WTO. So the option would be to charge the tariff (in theory), but rely on goodwill and TIR for its payment.

    The problem with abolishing all tariffs (which is a good thing), is that it removes the incentive for other countries to enter into FTAs with us. And this is a particular issue, because it is not reducing tariffs that is the biggest benefit of FTAs, but the removal of NTBs.
    There was good article in the Telegraph which destroyed this idea. If we abolish tarrifs we close down our industry without any guarantee that we get access to export markets. In the long term maybe our trade partners reciprocate but before then we are bust.
    As I remember it, Minford was intensely relaxed about our industry closing down, given that he saw benefits to the UK elsewhere from having zero tariffs.
    Consumers benefit, producers protected by the tariff barrier lose out.
    What an idiot Minford is. How can you have an economy where everyone is a consumer and nobody is a producer. There will be no wealth to pay for the consumption.
    Perhaps you could explain why producers need tariff protection.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 57,480
    edited November 2017

    tpfkar said:

    Scott_P said:

    What Labour needs to be able to do at the next election is to say that we respected the Brexit vote but we would not have left in the way that the Tories did.

    That is also going to be the pitch from whoever takes over from Tezza.

    "Yes, Brexit is crap, but it would have been great if only we had followed MY Brexit plan"
    That's why I have such total contempt for the likes of Gisela Stuart and Nigel Farage - who got what they wanted then ran away as soon as concept had to turn into implementation. And also a grudging respect for Boris Johnson - the temptation to do the same must be strong (and may well prove irresistable) but to date he's sticking in there and trying to find a way to make the impossible work.
    It's quite striking how the political forces advocating Brexit have declined in the past year. UKIP? Virtually invisible. Bojo? A risible figure whose political demise is obvious to all except him. The Brexit press? Still ranting but their contributions have taken on a slightly desperate tone and they no longer go unchallenged.

    Public advocacy for Brexit now comes only from the Tory backbenches and a minority of ministers and that will not be enough to save the process if and when it collapses.
    No it isn't. Corbyn and McDonnell both back Brexit, as does the PM, the Foreign Secretary and the Brexit Secretary.

    Even most Remainers in Parliament like Soubry and Umunna and Cable back staying in the single market permanently rather than reversing the Brexit vote completely
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938
    Roger said:

    Mortimer said:



    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit

    He's assuming Labour's leadership are against Brexit.

    A bit silly, all things considered.
    The mistake which some people make is to think that everyone Cares Passionately about EU membership. I do. You do. Anna Soubry and Bill Cash do. But the Labour leadership don't. They see it as an organisation with practical uses and some potential for good as well as some snags. On balance they're in favour, but it's not crucial to them either way. In that, they resemble many voters.

    Now that's very annoying to all of us who see it as the defining issue of our generation, etc. But it makes it quite easy to reverse an unfinished Brexit process if the opportunity arises and it seems like a good idea. I wouldn't bet on it, but nor would I rule it out. And if it delivered a net 10% gain in voters enabling them to do socialist things they really do care about, then sure, they'll do it.
    Nail on head.

    Most people really don't care much about Brexit either way. It's a big yawn. It rarely comes up in doorstep canvassing. It has not impacted on them. Yet.
    For years issues related to Brexit have come up in my canvassing:

    - Immigration
    - Not being able to make our own laws
    - Not being able to boot out foreign prisoners

    Don't please let us return to this age old myth that 'no-one cares about Europe'. We care deeply, that is why when we had the first opportunity in decades to say no to a converging Brusselian behemoth, we seized it.
    What particular laws do you feel the EU are preventing us from making?
    Let's take a specific example from industry - the Landfill directive. This massively altered UK policy on how we dealt with chemical waste. Because our geology is very different to that of much of Western Europe, we built anaerobic waste reactors in the ground. These were made illegal by the directive.

    This has decimated the chemical industry in part of the country by adding expenses that the rest of the world no longer has, and has forced that which is still profitable to incineration (mostly at Ellsmere Port). We cannot alter that directive to regenerate what was a perfectly sustainable and environmentally friendly business.

    So we can't legislate to do what is both sensible and economically viable, because the Labour govt at the time didn't do its homework - no govt can overturn that mistake.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,766
    geoffw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    The idea that the UK would or could entirely abolish customs duties after Brexit is insane. It would destroy most of our remaining manufacturing industry at a stroke. And very heavily damage agriculture and other sectors too.

    I don't think that's true. Don't forget that lots of UK companies use imported components in their products, so their cost of manufacture would fall in the event of a zero tariff world.

    The biggest issue - to me at least - is that thanks to price elasticity of demand, we would see our savings rate drop further.
    I don't understand this last point. Can you explain?
    If something is cheaper, you demand more of it.

    Removing all tariffs would lower the price of consumer goods, and would therefore increase demand for them.

    Consumers would therefore spend a higher proportion of their incomes than previously, because their money went further.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 11,551



    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit

    He's assuming Labour's leadership are against Brexit.

    A bit silly, all things considered.
    The mistake which some people make is to think that everyone Cares Passionately about EU membership. I do. You do. Anna Soubry and Bill Cash do. But the Labour leadership don't. They see it as an organisation with practical uses and some potential for good as well as some snags. On balance they're in favour, but it's not crucial to them either way. In that, they resemble many voters.

    Now that's very annoying to all of us who see it as the defining issue of our generation, etc. But it makes it quite easy to reverse an unfinished Brexit process if the opportunity arises and it seems like a good idea. I wouldn't bet on it, but nor would I rule it out. And if it delivered a net 10% gain in voters enabling them to do socialist things they really do care about, then sure, they'll do it.
    But a game changer for enough people to change the course of the last election. Mainly because Remainers believed that despite evidence to the contrary Corbyn was a serious Remainer. This won't be the case at the next election and my guess is they'll desert him in droves.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,814

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TonyE said:

    The only thing I'd add there is that UK can't abolish tariffs across the Irish border without doing so across whole WTO. So the option would be to charge the tariff (in theory), but rely on goodwill and TIR for its payment.

    The problem with abolishing all tariffs (which is a good thing), is that it removes the incentive for other countries to enter into FTAs with us. And this is a particular issue, because it is not reducing tariffs that is the biggest benefit of FTAs, but the removal of NTBs.
    There was good article in the Telegraph which destroyed this idea. If we abolish tarrifs we close down our industry without any guarantee that we get access to export markets. In the long term maybe our trade partners reciprocate but before then we are bust.
    As I remember it, Minford was intensely relaxed about our industry closing down, given that he saw benefits to the UK elsewhere from having zero tariffs.
    IIRC Minford predicted that introducing a minimum wage would lead to mass unemployment. His views, therefore, should be viewed with an appropriate level of scepticism.
    People frequently make dire economic predictions in support of their political arguments. Remember David Blanchflower's 5 million unemployed, or George Osborne's Punishment Budget.

  • rcs1000 said:

    geoffw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    The idea that the UK would or could entirely abolish customs duties after Brexit is insane. It would destroy most of our remaining manufacturing industry at a stroke. And very heavily damage agriculture and other sectors too.

    I don't think that's true. Don't forget that lots of UK companies use imported components in their products, so their cost of manufacture would fall in the event of a zero tariff world.

    The biggest issue - to me at least - is that thanks to price elasticity of demand, we would see our savings rate drop further.
    I don't understand this last point. Can you explain?
    If something is cheaper, you demand more of it.

    Removing all tariffs would lower the price of consumer goods, and would therefore increase demand for them.

    Consumers would therefore spend a higher proportion of their incomes than previously, because their money went further.
    For consumers to buy goods they need money. The money comes from the wages they get making products. If the companies they work for go bust as they cant sell abroad it does not matter how cheap goods are consumers will lose.




  • TonyE said:

    Roger said:

    Mortimer said:



    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit

    He's assuming Labour's leadership are against Brexit.

    A bit silly, all things considered.
    The voters.

    Now do it.
    Nail on head.

    Most people really don't care much about Brexit either way. It's a big yawn. It rarely comes up in doorstep canvassing. It has not impacted on them. Yet.
    For years issues related to Brexit have come up in my canvassing:

    - Immigration
    - Not being able to make our own laws
    - Not being able to boot out foreign prisoners

    Don't please let us return to this age old myth that 'no-one cares about Europe'. We care deeply, that is why when we had the first opportunity in decades to say no to a converging Brusselian behemoth, we seized it.
    What particular laws do you feel the EU are preventing us from making?
    Let's take a specific example from industry - the Landfill directive. This massively altered UK policy on how we dealt with chemical waste. Because our geology is very different to that of much of Western Europe, we built anaerobic waste reactors in the ground. These were made illegal by the directive.

    This has decimated the chemical industry in part of the country by adding expenses that the rest of the world no longer has, and has forced that which is still profitable to incineration (mostly at Ellsmere Port). We cannot alter that directive to regenerate what was a perfectly sustainable and environmentally friendly business.

    So we can't legislate to do what is both sensible and economically viable, because the Labour govt at the time didn't do its homework - no govt can overturn that mistake.

    On the other hand ...

    http://casepak.co.uk/where-would-we-be-without-the-eus-landfill-directive/

  • Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    you treat anything the other side in negotiations say as fundamental truth

    No, I treat fundamental truth like fundamental truth.

    Membership is the best deal on offer is a fundamental truth.

    That the Brexiteers don't understand that is not my problem.
    What on earth IS this generation, what sort of declined, malnourished, arseing useless bunch of thickos runs screaming for the hills when it gets an actual chance to arrest this country's circling of the toilet bowl and actually MAKE something of it.

    If we leave the EU, the point is that our prosperity isn't DECIDED by a group of other countries. It is decided by us.

    The only problems we've faced since this result have had shit all to do with the actual consequences of the vote to leave, and everything to do with the unwillingness of our own Government, for whatever reason, to realise that the EU relinquishing power and sovereignty means the UK stepping up to that responsibility.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,875
    Does anyone have a time series of average wages for the UK 1971 to present, can't find it on ONS website..
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 57,480
    edited November 2017



    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit

    He's assuming Labour's leadership are against Brexit.

    A bit silly, all things considered.
    The mistake which some people make is to think that everyone Cares Passionately about EU membership. I do. You do. Anna Soubry and Bill Cash do. But the Labour leadership don't. They see it as an organisation with practical uses and some potential for good as well as some snags. On balance they're in favour, but it's not crucial to them either way. In that, they resemble many voters.

    Now that's very annoying to all of us who see it as the defining issue of our generation, etc. But it makes it quite easy to reverse an unfinished Brexit process if the opportunity arises and it seems like a good idea. I wouldn't bet on it, but nor would I rule it out. And if it delivered a net 10% gain in voters enabling them to do socialist things they really do care about, then sure, they'll do it.
    Except that is not true.

    Corbyn has one of the longest and most consistent anti EU voting records in Parliament. He may not be committed to hard Brexit but he is committed to Brexit. Corbyn was voting against the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 when Davis was whipping Tory MPs to vote in favour and before May had even entered Parliament.

    Corbyn also knows 37% of Labour voters and a majority of Labour seats voted Leave.
  • Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    you treat anything the other side in negotiations say as fundamental truth

    No, I treat fundamental truth like fundamental truth.

    Membership is the best deal on offer is a fundamental truth.

    That the Brexiteers don't understand that is not my problem.
    What on earth IS this generation, what sort of declined, malnourished, arseing useless bunch of thickos runs screaming for the hills when it gets an actual chance to arrest this country's circling of the toilet bowl and actually MAKE something of it.

    If we leave the EU, the point is that our prosperity isn't DECIDED by a group of other countries. It is decided by us.

    The only problems we've faced since this result have had shit all to do with the actual consequences of the vote to leave, and everything to do with the unwillingness of our own Government, for whatever reason, to realise that the EU relinquishing power and sovereignty means the UK stepping up to that responsibility.

    Our prosperity has always been in our hands and, as an exporting nation, will also continue to be in the hands of others. It will continue to be the case that if we make stuff and offer services others want to buy we will be OK. It's just that now we will have fewer advantages than we have had up to now. But we voted for that and so must implement it. The problems the government has are political. It cannot accept the reality - that the EU holds the negotiating cards and will dictate the terms of any orderly withdrawal - because to do so would tear the Tories apart.

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,537
    rcs1000 said:

    geoffw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    The idea that the UK would or could entirely abolish customs duties after Brexit is insane. It would destroy most of our remaining manufacturing industry at a stroke. And very heavily damage agriculture and other sectors too.

    I don't think that's true. Don't forget that lots of UK companies use imported components in their products, so their cost of manufacture would fall in the event of a zero tariff world.

    The biggest issue - to me at least - is that thanks to price elasticity of demand, we would see our savings rate drop further.
    I don't understand this last point. Can you explain?
    If something is cheaper, you demand more of it.

    Removing all tariffs would lower the price of consumer goods, and would therefore increase demand for them.

    Consumers would therefore spend a higher proportion of their incomes than previously, because their money went further.
    Since we are talking economics, I think you are confusing partial and general equilibrium. The concept of (price) elasticity of demand applies to a good or a limited set of goods because "price" is a relative price. But the argument about removing tariffs applies to all goods. The only price you can mean is the general price level. If that falls then cet. par. people are better off and indeed demand will rise, but that is an income effect, not a price effect.
  • As the owner of a manufacturer of goods yes we do import goods at the moment but as most are from EC there are no duties. Our two biggest fears are.

    1. Regulatory barriers
    2. Transport delays

    On point 2 we are already facing issues from the more unilateral approach been taken by the USA. Goods have been held up for up to 2 weeks between the UK and USA. I listened recently to Digby Jones who admitted that come Brexit the French will effectively log jam the Channel destroying the short term production of the UK. There is nothing we can do to stop this as the French can just claim they are training their staff to the new procedures or dont have enough staff. He laughed this off as typical French. I am not laughing.



  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 47,071

    What on earth IS this generation, what sort of declined, malnourished, arseing useless bunch of thickos runs screaming for the hills when it gets an actual chance to arrest this country's circling of the toilet bowl and actually MAKE something of it.

    If we leave the EU, the point is that our prosperity isn't DECIDED by a group of other countries. It is decided by us.

    Our prosperity was always DECIDED by us, and we voted to trade it away to appease some xenophobes and bigots.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 7,406
    Tory gain from Labour in Waveney St Margarets ward by 77 votes!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,766
    geoffw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    geoffw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    The idea that the UK would or could entirely abolish customs duties after Brexit is insane. It would destroy most of our remaining manufacturing industry at a stroke. And very heavily damage agriculture and other sectors too.

    I don't think that's true. Don't forget that lots of UK companies use imported components in their products, so their cost of manufacture would fall in the event of a zero tariff world.

    The biggest issue - to me at least - is that thanks to price elasticity of demand, we would see our savings rate drop further.
    I don't understand this last point. Can you explain?
    If something is cheaper, you demand more of it.

    Removing all tariffs would lower the price of consumer goods, and would therefore increase demand for them.

    Consumers would therefore spend a higher proportion of their incomes than previously, because their money went further.
    Since we are talking economics, I think you are confusing partial and general equilibrium. The concept of (price) elasticity of demand applies to a good or a limited set of goods because "price" is a relative price. But the argument about removing tariffs applies to all goods. The only price you can mean is the general price level. If that falls then cet. par. people are better off and indeed demand will rise, but that is an income effect, not a price effect.
    But the marginal benefit of saving declines if you can buy more with your money today. Lowering the price of all goods would see demand for goods increases.

    There isn't a fixed pot of income that goes on goods: it depends on the relative attractiveness of - for example - hiring a cleaner, buying an iPhone X, or saving money for a rainy day. Unless interest rates rose to increase the attractiveness of savings, then I can't see how lowering the price of goods would not cause the savings rate to drop.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938

    TonyE said:

    Roger said:

    Mortimer said:



    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit

    He's assuming Labour's leadership are against Brexit.

    A bit silly, all things considered.
    The voters.

    Now do it.
    Nail on head.

    Most people really don't care much about Brexit either way. It's a big yawn. It rarely comes up in doorstep canvassing. It has not impacted on them. Yet.
    For years issues related to Brexit have come up in my canvassing:

    - Immigration
    - Not being able to make our own laws
    - Not being able to boot out foreign prisoners

    Don't please let us return to this age old myth that 'no-one cares about Europe'. We care deeply, that is why when we had the first opportunity in decades to say no to a converging Brusselian behemoth, we seized it.
    What particular laws do you feel the EU are preventing us from making?
    Let's take a specific example from industry - the Landfill directive. This massively altered UK policy on how we dealt with chemical waste. Because our geology is very different to that of much of Western Europe, we built anaerobic waste reactors in the ground. These were made illegal by the directive.

    This has decimated the chemical industry in part of the country by adding expenses that the rest of the world no longer has, and has forced that which is still profitable to incineration (mostly at Ellsmere Port). We cannot alter that directive to regenerate what was a perfectly sustainable and environmentally friendly business.

    So we can't legislate to do what is both sensible and economically viable, because the Labour govt at the time didn't do its homework - no govt can overturn that mistake.

    On the other hand ...

    http://casepak.co.uk/where-would-we-be-without-the-eus-landfill-directive/

    Yes, forcing recycling further has aided the profits of recycling companies I have no doubt. But the chemical plant I worked at was disposed of by its German parent, and now limps along at a shadow of its former size. The other hand is the one holding the cash.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,814

    tpfkar said:

    Scott_P said:

    What Labour needs to be able to do at the next election is to say that we respected the Brexit vote but we would not have left in the way that the Tories did.

    That is also going to be the pitch from whoever takes over from Tezza.

    "Yes, Brexit is crap, but it would have been great if only we had followed MY Brexit plan"
    That's why I have such total contempt for the likes of Gisela Stuart and Nigel Farage - who got what they wanted then ran away as soon as concept had to turn into implementation. And also a grudging respect for Boris Johnson - the temptation to do the same must be strong (and may well prove irresistable) but to date he's sticking in there and trying to find a way to make the impossible work.
    It's quite striking how the political forces advocating Brexit have declined in the past year. UKIP? Virtually invisible. Bojo? A risible figure whose political demise is obvious to all except him. The Brexit press? Still ranting but their contributions have taken on a slightly desperate tone and they no longer go unchallenged.

    Public advocacy for Brexit now comes only from the Tory backbenches and a minority of ministers and that will not be enough to save the process if and when it collapses.
    People expect Brexit to go ahead, so it's now the consensus.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 2,801
    HYUFD said:



    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit

    He's assuming Labour's leadership are against Brexit.

    A bit silly, all things considered.
    The mistake which some people make is to think that everyone Cares Passionately about EU membership. I do. You do. Anna Soubry and Bill Cash do. But the Labour leadership don't. They see it as an organisation with practical uses and some potential for good as well as some snags. On balance they're in favour, but it's not crucial to them either way. In that, they resemble many voters.

    Now that's very annoying to all of us who see it as the defining issue of our generation, etc. But it makes it quite easy to reverse an unfinished Brexit process if the opportunity arises and it seems like a good idea. I wouldn't bet on it, but nor would I rule it out. And if it delivered a net 10% gain in voters enabling them to do socialist things they really do care about, then sure, they'll do it.
    Except that is not true.

    Corbyn has one of the longest and most consistent anti EU voting records in Parliament. He may not be committed to hard Brexit but he is committed to Brexit. Corbyn was voting against the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 when Davis was whipping Tory MPs to vote in favour and before May had even entered Parliament.

    Corbyn also knows 37% of Labour voters and a majority of Labour seats voted Leave.
    Corbyn is also committed to giving the membership a greater say over Labour Party policy. And at least 90% of the membership voted remain. The view in the Party is that he is genuinely not very interested in the EU. But now he thinks he is on the threshold of Downing Street and he needs to hedge his bets to avoid antagonising leavers or remainers. So he will not go out on a limb - if the Brexit process looks to be failing he will not step in to defend it. Nor will he oppose a second referendum if there is a clear demand for one, but Labour will not officially campaign for one.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,766

    rcs1000 said:

    geoffw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    The idea that the UK would or could entirely abolish customs duties after Brexit is insane. It would destroy most of our remaining manufacturing industry at a stroke. And very heavily damage agriculture and other sectors too.

    I don't think that's true. Don't forget that lots of UK companies use imported components in their products, so their cost of manufacture would fall in the event of a zero tariff world.

    The biggest issue - to me at least - is that thanks to price elasticity of demand, we would see our savings rate drop further.
    I don't understand this last point. Can you explain?
    If something is cheaper, you demand more of it.

    Removing all tariffs would lower the price of consumer goods, and would therefore increase demand for them.

    Consumers would therefore spend a higher proportion of their incomes than previously, because their money went further.
    For consumers to buy goods they need money. The money comes from the wages they get making products. If the companies they work for go bust as they cant sell abroad it does not matter how cheap goods are consumers will lose.




    I'm struggling to understand. If we remove all tariffs from imports, why does that prevent UK firms from selling abroad?

    Furthermore, I'd point out that removing tariffs from imports would mean that British firms would be able to manufacture products for less, as the cost of their imported components would be lower.
  • Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    you treat anything the other side in negotiations say as fundamental truth

    No, I treat fundamental truth like fundamental truth.

    Membership is the best deal on offer is a fundamental truth.

    That the Brexiteers don't understand that is not my problem.
    What on earth IS this generation, what sort of declined, malnourished, arseing useless bunch of thickos runs screaming for the hills when it gets an actual chance to arrest this country's circling of the toilet bowl and actually MAKE something of it.

    If we leave the EU, the point is that our prosperity isn't DECIDED by a group of other countries. It is decided by us.

    The only problems we've faced since this result have had shit all to do with the actual consequences of the vote to leave, and everything to do with the unwillingness of our own Government, for whatever reason, to realise that the EU relinquishing power and sovereignty means the UK stepping up to that responsibility.

    Our prosperity has always been in our hands and, as an exporting nation, will also continue to be in the hands of others. It will continue to be the case that if we make stuff and offer services others want to buy we will be OK. It's just that now we will have fewer advantages than we have had up to now. But we voted for that and so must implement it. The problems the government has are political. It cannot accept the reality - that the EU holds the negotiating cards and will dictate the terms of any orderly withdrawal - because to do so would tear the Tories apart.

    The EU can decide what access the UK has to its market, the UK can decide what access the EU has to our market. The EU market is of greater value to the UK in percentage terms, the UK market is of greater value to the EU in real terms. Those are the bald facts - the quivering jellies of PB are acting like the EU has some amazing ace up their sleeve. Anyone would think we were leaving an organisation where the terms of trade were in our favour.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,814
    edited November 2017
    justin124 said:

    Tory gain from Labour in Waveney St Margarets ward by 77 votes!

    Waveney has shifted very strongly to the Conservatives, in recent years (an 8% swing since 2010).

    With a near-gain from Labour in Darlington, too, last night's results were very good for the Conservatives.
This discussion has been closed.