Brexit: Now What? Part II

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The best thing about the EU is that it did away with customs tariffs between member countries so that companies costs came down and profits went up.

How have you determined that this is the 'best thing'?

It's a good thing. But so has been the elimination of transaction costs in a number of areas. Standardisation of laws has helped businesses. Free movement of people has helped.

And of course like any other union it places some restrictions on its members to prevent them going off and doing their own thing and defeating the main point of being in a union in the first place.

One of the points, if not the whole point, of the EU was to try to move away from individual member countries trying to outdo each other at every turn and look for ways to co-operate that benefit everyone.

That seems to be the concept that you have a problem with based on pretty much all of your objections. You still view everything as the UK vs the EU.

 

[Airfix]

If you remain in EU, you'll get trade with the Commonwealth sooner than if you leave. Plus you'll loose what you call the best thing about EU.

The EU hasn't got a free trade agreement with the Commonwealth, isn't seeking one with the whole lot, just the bigger economies in it.
And now we're out the Commonwealth can become a 53 nation free trade association so that all members of the Commonwealth can enjoy tariff free trade. We can do more to help poorer countries become more prosperous.

We've voted to leave the vote is cast, the wheels are in motion, the government is preparing for Brexit.
We're not remaining. We're leaving.

The thread this one has been split from began as a question; "what next?"
In answer to the I suggested rejoining EFTA and turning the Commonwealth back into a free trade association.

I struggle to see how you can construct anything positive for Brexit from this.

Self governance.

The ability to provide state aid without seeking Commission permission.

Freedom from vast swathes of EU directives including the Bolkstein directive and the first railways directive.

The ability to negotiate free trade agreements that work in Britain's interests, rather than cobbling on the requirements of Bulgaria, Poland, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, France etc.

Tax freedom. We won't be bound by the EU VAT directive of 2006, so that in emergency situations like that of 2008, VAT can be massively slashed for a temporary period to stimulate growth instead of the minor cut in VAT to 15% that we saw, it could be cut to any level including 1% if we wished to.

We will never be part of the EU's military plans so when and IF the EU fully integrates the militaries of the remaining members, we'll be fully independent and will retain the right to military and diplomatic neutrality.

And we'll no longer have to stump up the £8.5bn a year (post rebate) membership fee.

A vote to remain in the EU was not a vote for the status quo, the EU is in a state of flux, it is an evolving federalist project.
The public have rejected membership and I am glad.

 

[Aepervius]

You're thinking of Lords being appointed minister? I agree, however, the more important point is what McHrozni raised:


No-one in the UK gets elected to be a minister. They're appointed to that role (the PM by the Queen, and the other ministers by the PM). And even in the choice of PM, the electorate often doesn't get a say. While it's tradition that the leader of the majority party gets the post, the electorate didn't have a say in the appointment of Callaghan, Major, Brown or May to the post of PM. And that's only in the last 40 years.

The bottom line IMO , counting the house of lord, the EU is more democratic than the bUK government system.

 

[Airfix]

Bottom line, is that the EU was given a chance to reform.
It never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity to reform.

They've still got an EU foreign policy chief, they've still got an attached military staff.
There is still an EU Maritime Force, the Eurocorps and a European Gendarmerie Force.

I don't want those sort of things.

I want Britain to reserve a right of military neutrality. That could not have been guaranteed if we'd remained and been outvoted under the EU's Qualified Majority Voting system.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And now we're out the Commonwealth can become a 53 nation free trade association so that all members of the Commonwealth can enjoy tariff free trade. We can do more to help poorer countries become more prosperous.*

You want all 53 nations of the Commonwealth to have a free trade deal? Who gets to decide the terms of it? Do all 53 countries get a say in it and a veto on bits they don't like? How long will that take?

 

[Airfix]

Yes.

Who? All 53.
Start by proposing to go back to the old terms by which everyone traded before we screwed them all in 1973.

Copies must still exist.
How long ? Dunno, but it's been done before and worked before, so lets try again.

It's got to be better than hitting developing countries with customs tariffs.

 

[Tolls]

It's been over 40 years.
Don't you think the economic priorities of those countries might just have shifted a tad?

India springs to mind here...

 

[Lothian]

Yes.

Who? All 53.
Start by proposing to go back to the old terms by which everyone traded before we screwed them all in 1973.

Copies must still exist.
How long ? Dunno, but it's been done before and worked before, so lets try again.

It's got to be better than hitting developing countries with customs tariffs.

Better for who? Over 20% of the commonwealth countries can currently send goods to the UK tariff free. However duties are paid to those countries when goods from the UK are sent there. A free trade agreement with those countries will leave them worse off.

 

[catsmate]

Whether you like it or not, all members of the UK cabinet are elected MPs.

Not actually true and not common in representative democracies anyway.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... The best thing about the EU is that it did away with customs tariffs between member countries so that companies costs came down and profits went up.

Which is what drove EMU. In the end, practical experience showed that a total customs union can only be a point on a journey, not a destination.

Our trade beyond the EU is going up despite tariffs, it would do even better without tariffs.

Tariffs have not been raised yet. Wait for Art50 to be triggered, and even then, the EU may only raise them slowly until the ensuing 24-month exit period is over. Recent stability and optimism stems frankly from the view that the UK has only one option, which is now to be an almost-member with no vote. Quite the accomplishment.

 

[Airfix]

Better for who? Over 20% of the commonwealth countries can currently send goods to the UK tariff free. However duties are paid to those countries when goods from the UK are sent there. A free trade agreement with those countries will leave them worse off.

Consider for a moment that when Commonwealth countries wish to sell us agricultural products, they face tariffs, whereas EU farmers do not.

Therefore a free trade agreement will leave the Commonwealth farmers better off.

 

[Airfix]

Which is what drove EMU. In the end, practical experience showed that a total customs union can only be a point on a journey, not a destination.

In the end, people decided that it was a journey in the wrong direction.
17.41 million people have chosen a different path, despite the scaremongering and lies of David Cameron and George Osborne.

They ran such a dreadfully bad campaign I wondered whether the former PM was actually sincere about staying in or trying to use his own unpopularity to drive people into voting leave.

 

[abaddon]

Yes.

Who? All 53.
Start by proposing to go back to the old terms by which everyone traded before we screwed them all in 1973.

Copies must still exist.
How long ? Dunno, but it's been done before and worked before, so lets try again.

It's got to be better than hitting developing countries with customs tariffs.

That is simply a brexiteer fantasy. There are around 2.4 billion people in the commonwealth. The UK would be a bit player and indeed already gets spanked regularly by the other, larger members.

 

[The Don]

In the end, people decided that it was a journey in the wrong direction.
17.41 million people have chosen a different path, despite the scaremongering and lies of David Cameron and George Osborne.

Actually 17.41 million people chose a variety of different paths.

Some, like you, voted to leave the EU but to still retain free trade with Europe, the free movement of people but then to extend both of those to the rest of the world. They voted to throw off the shackles of the corporatist EU in order that the UK could improve the lot of workers both at home and across the world.

Some others voted to remove ourselves from the iron grip of Europe and their pesky environmental and workers protections so that the UK economy could compete with the developing world on a level playing field.

Others still voted to leave the EU so that the £350m that was being "wasted" on the EU could instead be spent on the NHS. They are largely ambivalent about the wider implications, they just want more spending on the NHS.

Another large group are uncomfortable about the number of foreigners "over here" taking "our jobs" and would dearly love to see the back of Johnny, Jancuz, Jahangir and Gilles foreigner and get them sent back to where they belong.

.....and there are lots of other groups no doubt.

Whatever path we end up taking post-Brexit, one or more of those groups are likely to be more unhappy than if we'd stayed in the EU.

 

[Craig B]

Can anyone who knows about Belgian politicians tell me if this appointment is indicative of strong support for the Scottish government's pro-EU stance? And if so, how that might be translated into practical effect during the Article 50 process, if and when that is ever initiated by the Theresa May administration in Westminster.

 

[Lothian]

Consider for a moment that when Commonwealth countries wish to sell us agricultural products, they face tariffs, whereas EU farmers do not.

Therefore a free trade agreement will leave the Commonwealth farmers better off.

Consider for a moment reading my post before replying to it. Ovet
20% of the commonwealth countries pay no tarifs on exports to the whole EU. However they can charge tarrifs on Imports. How would a free trade agreement with the UK leave them better off?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes.

Who? All 53.
Start by proposing to go back to the old terms by which everyone traded before we screwed them all in 1973.

Copies must still exist.
How long ? Dunno, but it's been done before and worked before, so lets try again.

It's got to be better than hitting developing countries with customs taritffs.

51 excluding Cyprus and Malta I presume?

Car workers might not have jobs but they can benefit from Vanuatan copra imports tax free!

Werent you railing against the carbon footprint of imports a few days ago?

 

[Airfix]

That is simply a brexiteer fantasy. There are around 2.4 billion people in the commonwealth. The UK would be a bit player and indeed already gets spanked regularly by the other, larger members.

Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations

Larger countries by population maybe, but not economically.
We're the fifth largest economy in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

There are no larger members in the Commonwealth economically.
It is in their interests to have as much access to our market on a tariff free basis as possible.

 

[Airfix]

51 excluding Cyprus and Malta I presume?

Car workers might not have jobs but they can benefit from Vanuatan copra imports tax free!

Werent you railing against the carbon footprint of imports a few days ago?

Depends on the import / export.
Biofuels for example are a growth industry and do not damage the environment the way that conventional fuels do.
Solar and wind energy systems are also better for the environment.

Where would the harm be in those ?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Depends on the import / export.
Biofuels for example are a growth industry and do not damage the environment the way that conventional fuels do.
Solar and wind energy systems are also better for the environment.

Where would the harm be in those ?

Last I checked biofuels were fairly horrible in their impact in a load of areas. Farmers switch to growing fuel crops at the expense of food then the stuff is shipped around the world

Im not sure there are solar manufacturers left in the commonwealth which is dominated by China. For wind its not far off the same story for the commonwealth. I guess theres Suzlon but you dont need me to tell you about working conditions in Indian factories.

Oh and google the rare earth metals used in the magnets for many wind generators and their environmental impact in terms of extracting them.

In any case these can be sourced from europe which saves significant transport carbon.

You seem to be advocating switching to the exploitation of poor countries again as we did in the days of Empire.