Europe --- In or Out

[Renton 20600]

7 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

No, we haven’t.

In a CU with the EU but out of the SM is basically Turkey. Turkey (and many other eastern European states) are desperate to join the SM but probably never will, and yet we are throwing it away. It literally makes no sense. It's taking years, costing us a fortune, and there are no discernible benefits, but plenty of disbenefits. This can't go on. 

[ewerk 29771]

14 hours ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

 

I told you about a Turkey styled custom union a year ago. And yesterday when you asked I explained about the U.K. wide backstop and that what was agreed in December was being re-written. Today you said it wasn’t.

 

Your primary reason for voting for Brexit was so that the disgraced Liam Fox could do trade deals around the world. So perhaps I should make it clear to you that a Turkey style customs union would not allow the UK to strike any of its own trade deals on goods. It would mean having to match EU tariffs on deals they've negotiated with other nations while those other nations have no obligation to give us the same terms as they give the EU.

So please tell me why you're happy with that scenario.

[wykikitoon 19458]

http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2018/10/24/banks-stalling-on-agreed-funding-for-projects/

 

[Gemmill 43165]

A lot of energy is expended on here daily making the class dunce eat his dunce's hat. 

[Christmas Tree 4530]

2 hours ago, ewerk said:

Your primary reason for voting for Brexit was so that the disgraced Liam Fox could do trade deals around the world. So perhaps I should make it clear to you that a Turkey style customs union would not allow the UK to strike any of its own trade deals on goods. It would mean having to match EU tariffs on deals they've negotiated with other nations while those other nations have no obligation to give us the same terms as they give the EU.

So please tell me why you're happy with that scenario.

 

Because our version would still allow us to do trade deals.

[ewerk 29771]

1 minute ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

Because our version would still allow us to do trade deals.

Okay, how would that work in practice? 

[Rayvin 5131]

Presumably CT's argument is that we wouldn't have to match the EU's trade deals with other countries. And I'm curious on this too, why in your view would we be compelled to? Is it an underpinning agreement of the customs union?

 

I'm just trying to accelerate the conversation.

[ewerk 29771]

The clue is in the name, it’s a customs UNION. We apply common external tariffs. Otherwise there would have to be border checks and that defeats the purpose.

[Rayvin 5131]

Because of Northern Ireland specifically I guess. I mean I can't see much of a problem with having the border checks (they'd be an EU problem more than a UK one anyway I suspect) apart from the consequence for NI. Is that the issue?

[ewerk 29771]

Apart from the fact that we don't have the capacity or facilities for such checks at ports and it would mean the death of JIT manufacturing and be an incredible headache for the exporters of this country it'd all be tickety boo.

[Sonatine 11183]

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/10/24/it-s-official-we-ve-run-out-of-time-to-prepare-for-no-deal

[ewerk 29771]

If we'd started planning for no deal the minute we triggered article 50 we still wouldn't have had enough time.

[Rayvin 5131]

47 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Apart from the fact that we don't have the capacity or facilities for such checks at ports and it would mean the death of JIT manufacturing and be an incredible headache for the exporters of this country it'd all be tickety boo.

 

No but, if we agree a customs union with the EU and agree to their regulatory requirements, why does that prevent us from agreeing to different regulatory requirements with anyone else. I get the point if you're building a car and some components come from non-EU sources - if that car is going to be sold into the EU then all parts need to comply. So car manufacturers continue abiding by the same regulatory requirements when sourcing parts. But industries that don't export into the EU, do they really have a headache here? What's stopping the government from just applying a liberal regulatory framework giving companies the option of continuing to abide by EU regulations or opting not to do so.

 

I get the point about JIT manufacturing, but only for companies that make components for EU factories, surely? Our product manufacturers will have the more liberal framework of customs options, so we won't need to be border checking anything coming from the EU. So importing for JIT should be fine, no? Exporting is where the problem is. That's the only place you would need border checks, surely? And it would be the EU carrying that out, as they're the ones with the more stringent regulatory requirements. Granted, it would be a fatal blow to UK based JIT exporters into Europe.

 

I'm not saying all of this is a good idea btw, it's clearly fucking stupid, but I can't quite get my head around why the customs union actively stops us from just agreeing to the EU line and then agreeing different terms elsewhere. I do accept that it would mean companies bear the cost of compliance with EU regulation themselves though, but likely as not they'd pass this on to their suppliers anyway. And again, it's only going to affect companies supplying into Europe, and they'll already be sourcing compliant parts, surely?

[ewerk 29771]

Okay, you're conflating the customs union and the single market.

In simple terms the customs union means that we would apply the same external tariffs to non-EU countries as the EU and would have zero tariffs between us and the EU. That simplifies trade with the EU but would prevent us from striking trade deals with other countries based on reduced tariffs. Because if we strike a deal with the USA on whiskey whereby we charge zero tariffs on bourbon and the EU has a 25% tariff on bourbon then the EU would have to check UK freight to make sure that no one is channeling the cheaper bourbon through the UK into the EU. That's an example of one product, obviously there would be 1000's involved in any trade deal.

The single market is what harmonises regulations throughout the EU so anything made by one country is automatically acceptable anywhere across the EU. Chequers proposes that while we aren't in the SM, we would copy the SM rulebook on goods. We could potentially strike trade deals based only on regulatory divergence from the EU standard but a. this isn't a massive advantage for us, tariffs are much more of an issue and b. it would means accepting products that are below the standards we currently have i.e. it's the consumer who loses out.

Your idea that we simply don't check anything coming from the EU isn't feasible in practice. Firstly, it would mean that under most favoured nation rules we would be unable to check imports coming from any country in the world. Abandoning checks for the EU means abandoning checks for everyone. That would most likely lead to a lot of dodgy stuff coming into the country as well as no checks on whether the correct tariffs have been paid. Secondly it doesn't solve the issue of EU checks on freight entering their jurisdiction. On 30th March a lorry coming from France may get into the UK with no delays but it won't get back out without massive delays. This then has a knock on effect on their next journey into the UK not to mention the fact that fresh produce from the UK could be rotting by the time it gets into the EU. SO JIT industry that relies on the UK in any way fails. It simply doesn't work unless both sides drop all checks, and the EU isn't going to do that for anyone outside of their CU and SM.

[Rayvin 5131]

2 hours ago, ewerk said:

Okay, you're conflating the customs union and the single market.

In simple terms the customs union means that we would apply the same external tariffs to non-EU countries as the EU and would have zero tariffs between us and the EU. That simplifies trade with the EU but would prevent us from striking trade deals with other countries based on reduced tariffs. Because if we strike a deal with the USA on whiskey whereby we charge zero tariffs on bourbon and the EU has a 25% tariff on bourbon then the EU would have to check UK freight to make sure that no one is channeling the cheaper bourbon through the UK into the EU. That's an example of one product, obviously there would be 1000's involved in any trade deal.

The single market is what harmonises regulations throughout the EU so anything made by one country is automatically acceptable anywhere across the EU. Chequers proposes that while we aren't in the SM, we would copy the SM rulebook on goods. We could potentially strike trade deals based only on regulatory divergence from the EU standard but a. this isn't a massive advantage for us, tariffs are much more of an issue and b. it would means accepting products that are below the standards we currently have i.e. it's the consumer who loses out.

Your idea that we simply don't check anything coming from the EU isn't feasible in practice. Firstly, it would mean that under most favoured nation rules we would be unable to check imports coming from any country in the world. Abandoning checks for the EU means abandoning checks for everyone. That would most likely lead to a lot of dodgy stuff coming into the country as well as no checks on whether the correct tariffs have been paid. Secondly it doesn't solve the issue of EU checks on freight entering their jurisdiction. On 30th March a lorry coming from France may get into the UK with no delays but it won't get back out without massive delays. This then has a knock on effect on their next journey into the UK not to mention the fact that fresh produce from the UK could be rotting by the time it gets into the EU. SO JIT industry that relies on the UK in any way fails. It simply doesn't work unless both sides drop all checks, and the EU isn't going to do that for anyone outside of their CU and SM.

 

Nice, thanks for this.

Worth reading @Christmas Tree

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3739]

50 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Nice, thanks for this.

Worth reading @Christmas Tree

 

Lol "reading".

[Andrew 4679]

BAU boys, no downside for the common man from Brexit to be seen.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/24/no-deal-brexit-would-halt-most-uk-spain-flights-industry-says

 

 

[Renton 20600]

6 hours ago, Rayvin said:

 

Nice, thanks for this.

Worth reading @Christmas Tree

 

Not getting at you in particular Rayvin, but it's an incredibly frustrating fact that virtually none of the population, politicians included, understand what the internal market is and why it's essential to our economy. 

 

Anyway, good Brexit news, I see that massive patriot James Dyson, has faith in post Brexit global UK and is investing his new electric motor factory here.

 

Oh. 

Edited October 24, 2018 by Renton

[Christmas Tree 4530]

1 hour ago, Andrew said:

BAU boys, no downside for the common man from Brexit to be seen.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/24/no-deal-brexit-would-halt-most-uk-spain-flights-industry-says

 

 

 

Terrible news for the EU, Great news for U.K. Tourism and caravan parks. Forget Benidorm for your hen and stag do’s, come to Newcastle.

[Rayvin 5131]

8 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Not getting at you in particular Rayvin, but it's an incredibly frustrating fact that virtually none of the population, politicians included, understand what the internal market is and why it's essential to our economy. 

 

Anyway, good Brexit news, I see that massive patriot James Dyson, has faith in post Brexit global UK and is investing his new electric motor factory here.

 

Oh. 

 

Well i voted remain on the basis that people who did understand such things said that leaving would be a disaster. I accepted my ignorance and made an informed opinion based on the words of experts. As wise a choice as I feel i could have made.

 

It should never have been put to a vote of course.

[Isegrim 9599]

24 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

Terrible news for the EU, Great news for U.K. Tourism and caravan parks. Forget Benidorm for your hen and stag do’s, come to Newcastle.

Terrible news for ze German towel industry.

[ewerk 29771]

9 hours ago, Rayvin said:

 

Well i voted remain on the basis that people who did understand such things said that leaving would be a disaster. I accepted my ignorance and made an informed opinion based on the words of experts. As wise a choice as I feel i could have made.

 

It should never have been put to a vote of course.

You believed the experts. A lot of people believed the politicians who they assumed that they could trust but who repeatedly lied to them over and over and continue to do so. I don't understand how there isn't more outrage that Brexiters have been sold a pup. The only reason I can think of is that they don't want to admit that they've been conned.

[ewerk 29771]

 

 

[Isegrim 9599]

2 hours ago, ewerk said:

You believed the experts. A lot of people believed the politicians who they assumed that they could trust but who repeatedly lied to them over and over and continue to do so. I don't understand how there isn't more outrage that Brexiters have been sold a pup. The only reason I can think of is that they don't want to admit that they've been conned.

Most people were fed the lies they wanted to hear because they suit their personal agenda. Most of them still don’t care about it being lies, because getting rid of the evil EU and pesky foreigners to preserve their ideal of their little England is more important to them.

[Christmas Tree 4530]

This old chestnut.

 

How many voted remain dreading a promised punishment budget or instant recession just for voting leave.

 

There was no manifestos.

 

I highlighted at the time my reasons for voting leave and the issues that were important to me. All of those are still being negotiated and none have been ruled out.

 

However the lies from remain about a punishment budget and instant recession have indeed been proved as lies.