Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[Granny Danger]

Personally I’m astounded that the EU is wanting to impose conditions on the U.K. just because we want unfettered access to the single market.

It would be more understandable if we were right on their doorstep and the fifth largest economy.

 

[Baxter Parp]

 

[Detournement]

1 hour ago, Michael W said:

Third country (non-EU) imports are however subject to pretty high tariffs. If there is no deal and we lower the tariffs to zero due to the amount of food we import, every country in the world will be able to benefit from this zero tariff. The agricultural sector in Britain would be essentially wiped out as a result. 

On the other hand, we import a lot of food from the EU which at the moment carries no tariff. Under a no deal these will become more expensive, which is certainly damaging to the wallets of the population. Then there's the effect on British exporters, whose products simultaneously become more expensive to source too. 

There is no way the agriculture sector in the UK will be wiped out unless the government allows agricultural land to be rezoned for development. Which isn't going to happen. 

[welshbairn]

10 minutes ago, bendan said:

Yes, I know, but why is it good when it's from a European country but bad when it's from somewhere else. Non-tariff barriers (like phyto-sanitary standards and regulations on hormones etc) would still apply. 

Not if the Yanks have anything to do with it. Pork barrel politics won't stop in Congress just because Trump's out of the way.

[Detournement]

1 minute ago, Baxter Parp said:

 

Under No Deal we will be all lean and full of vitamin D from eating fish. 

 What's not to like. 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

5 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Low blow and addressed so often since then.

BTW I ride a Swedish model drive a Volvo.

Oh no I kinda ‘get’ your explanation, I just played the chess of it out in my head and predicted tories would say no new indy ref so wanted to keep my EU citizenship. 
Regardless its always good to remind you that you voted with Boris, Nigel and ‘Are Tommeh’. X

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

4 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

 

When you consider the smoke and mirrors of all this, Boris is willing to essentially crash the UK economy based on a natural product we dont own or control effectively that’s worth 0.1% of our GDP. Or is there perhaps a drive amongst his wealthy colleagues and donors to go for no deal because they’ll profit from reducing wages, workers rights and lowering standards etc plus the opportunity to become a tax haven? 
But the dafties in essex etc all think its ‘are sovereignty’ etc.
Boris Johnson couldnt give a flying f**k about patriotism, its all about the opportunism here.  

[Granny Danger]

5 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Oh no I kinda ‘get’ your explanation, I just played the chess of it out in my head and predicted tories would say no new indy ref so wanted to keep my EU citizenship. 
Regardless its always good to remind you that you voted with Boris, Nigel and ‘Are Tommeh’. X

Thank you for reminding me.  It keeps me in my place.  It helps me accept that I’m not infallible though I’m still lots better than anyone else on here.

Thanks again.

ETA @Tynierose is a fanny.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Granny Danger

[strichener]

2 hours ago, coprolite said:

I think zero tarrifs will be enormously damaging for some producers. Zero tarrifs on cane sugar will almost certainly finish sugar beet producers. For meat products it's a lot less clear. Obviously overseas competitors will become cheaper but fodder fed production should get cheaper if we can import feed at a lower cost. 

If nothing else comes of this fiasco it will be an excellent experiment for trade theorists. 

Agricultural products is not a single classification, it is much more sensible.  i.e. Fruit such as apples (0808.10) or dried fruit - apples (0813.30) can be subject to tarrifs whereas pears (0808.30) could be exempt.

The idea that you cannot protect against specific imports if using WTO rules is to not understand what the WTO rules are for.  You cannot discriminate against sources of trade (unless part of a inclusive trade agreement), you can discriminate on the objects of trade.

[Michael W]

26 minutes ago, bendan said:

Yes, I know, but why is it good when it's from a European country but bad when it's from somewhere else. Non-tariff barriers (like phyto-sanitary standards and regulations on hormones etc) would still apply. 

Vastly cheaper labour costs that are basically slavery in some instances - the tariff mitigates this. If we want to have a decent standard of living, we can't at the same time have domestic industry entirely undercut by the developing world. 

Standards are another thing too, although that can at least be mitigated through other means as you point out. 

I don't necessarily see treating EU and non-EU imports on an equal footing as a bad thing in theory, but it's a tough balancing act when we've been in a customs union for nearly 30 years. 

[Detournement]

28 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

When you consider the smoke and mirrors of all this, Boris is willing to essentially crash the UK economy based on a natural product we dont own or control effectively that’s worth 0.1% of our GDP. Or is there perhaps a drive amongst his wealthy colleagues and donors to go for no deal because they’ll profit from reducing wages, workers rights and lowering standards etc plus the opportunity to become a tax haven? 
But the dafties in essex etc all think its ‘are sovereignty’ etc.
Boris Johnson couldnt give a flying f**k about patriotism, its all about the opportunism here.  

The EU has already crashed wages across Europe to the extent that the Tories had to get on board with a minimum wage policy to stop society breaking down. 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Detournement

[welshbairn]

32 minutes ago, strichener said:

Agricultural products is not a single classification, it is much more sensible.  i.e. Fruit such as apples (0808.10) or dried fruit - apples (0813.30) can be subject to tarrifs whereas pears (0808.30) could be exempt.

The idea that you cannot protect against specific imports if using WTO rules is to not understand what the WTO rules are for.  You cannot discriminate against sources of trade (unless part of a inclusive trade agreement), you can discriminate on the objects of trade.

The Tories have talked about zero tariffs across the board before, don't know if that was serious or not. 

[strichener]

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The Tories have talked about zero tariffs across the board before, don't know if that was serious or not. 

That'll get burned along with the deal that was in the oven.

[ICTJohnboy]

23 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The Tories have talked about zero tariffs across the board before, don't know if that was serious or not. 

 

Are you still taking bets on No deal/postponement on the 31st?

[welshbairn]

6 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

Are you still taking bets on No deal/postponement on the 31st?

Yup. It's no deal versus deal or postponement, I'm betting that there will be a deal or postponement.

Edited December 12, 2020 by welshbairn

[doulikefish]

Gun boat diplomacy is now a thing

Uk is a laughing stock

Easiest trade deal in history

Edited December 12, 2020 by doulikefish

[peternapper]

11 minutes ago, doulikefish said:

Gun boat diplomacy is now a thing

Uk is a laughing stock

Easiest trade deal in history

The French fishermen should give themselves a couple weeks off from Jan 1st, just tie their boats up across the entrances to their ports & wait for the smell of rotting fish to waft across the channel. How long will it take Boris to get the Atlantic convoys going to feed england?

[Baxter Parp]

 

[Baxter Parp]

[Detournement]

1 hour ago, MixuFruit said:

I'm talking about changes in labour share of GDP and income/wealth inequality since the advent of the EU which have been undeniably regressive.