On 21/05/2017 18:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:

I keep on asking about all these large countries round the world who are
free to do a deal with the UK.

With you so far.

To replace the EU in terms of trade and
services income to the UK. If they are already in a trade deal with
another country or countries, that deal could well be in conflict with a
new deal to the UK.

I'm struggling to understand that lot. What are you talking about re
replacement and conflict?

If it helps, IMO there are these categories of potential trading
partners for the UK.

1. Countries we already have an EU agreement with.

You think? This will be part of cake and eat it, then?

Most, if not all, of them will want to keep trading with the UK. By
leaving the EU there's no need for us to stop trading with any of them.


2. Countries with no EU agreement who use WTO terms.

Anyone can trade under WTO terms. The idea of a deal is to better those.

Correct.


We would want to continue existing trade with Type 1 countries and
possibly improve such deals by making them tailored to us and them. Some
of them have already indicated their desire to do so.

They may well have to choose who they value more - trade with the EU *or*
the UK.

This is where I begin to struggle to understand your viewpoint. Why
might these countries need to choose between the UK and the EU27? Why
will they not continue to trade with both?


We would want to develop new trade deals with Type 2 countries. Some of
them are already in talks.

There will be plenty talking. Which will go on for years.

How do your concerns fit into that?

My 'concerns' is that those who lead us into this mess have absolutely no
clue at all about the aftermath. No plans - only hopes.

I agree there's no guarantee that the government has done the planning
it should. We can only hope. Our future is very much in their hands.


--
James Harris