On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:36:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It's also why we separate trade deals are utterly pointless while
we're in the EU - because if the UK applied zero duty to US goods in
a category, but Germany didn't, we could buy the same things through
Germany and not pay the duty.

I have read the above three times, and am still scratching my head.

Sorry. You're right. What I meant to say was that if the UK applied
duty,
but Germany didn't.

Why on earth would we?

Let's say that the UK wanted to put a 20% duty on steel imported from
China.

But Germany didn't. But we can import steel from Germany without any duty.

So... all that's happened is that the same steel has come to the UK, but
the UK hasn't received any of that duty on it. Because the buyer's bought
it from Germany.

On 18/06/16 10:16, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:36:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It's also why we separate trade deals are utterly pointless while
we're in the EU - because if the UK applied zero duty to US goods in
a category, but Germany didn't, we could buy the same things through
Germany and not pay the duty.

I have read the above three times, and am still scratching my head.

Sorry. You're right. What I meant to say was that if the UK applied
duty,
but Germany didn't.

Why on earth would we?

Let's say that the UK wanted to put a 20% duty on steel imported from
China.


Why? We don't have a steel industry left to protect, thanks to the
Wonderful EU.

But Germany didn't. But we can import steel from Germany without any duty.


Well if we were trying to protect our own steel industry, we would of
course put 20% on German steel as well.

So... all that's happened is that the same steel has come to the UK, but
the UK hasn't received any of that duty on it. Because the buyer's bought
it from Germany.


Exactly, Which is why we have to leave the EU.



--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

In article ,
tim... wrote:
Again, as I understand it, neither the UK nor the EU currently has a
trade deal with the USA - this is what TTIP is all about, but hasn't
yet been agreed. But we *still* do a lot of trade with the US.

[As far as I can see, TTIP would be bad news for us anyway - so if
we're not in the EU at the time when it's finally agreed, so much the
better!]

As currently "leaked" it seems to be a bad deal for many of the
countries of the EU.

The negotiators seem to be doing a **** poor job at representing the
interests of the countries that they are negotiating for and what they
end up with stands every chance of being voted down when it gets to the
council of ministers - in 30 years time :-)

True. Yet the BREXITs are adamant we will be able to agree advantageous
trade deals around the world after leaving the EU easily and quickly. And
also with the EU.

--
*You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
there are hundreds of country pairs that happily trade with each other
without a separate deal in place. the idea that it is difficult is
nonsense

Can you name a pair of countries that trade happily with no formal
trade deal?

I meant other than standard WTO rules

(I rather thought that was obvious in the context of my other
contributions)

I'd not really call that a formal trade deal. More of a blanket one.

If it were just fine, why bother with any other deals?

--
*Does fuzzy logic tickle? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tim... wrote:
We will use standard WTO rules until we can negotiate something better.

We will almost certainly, unilaterally remove import tariffs from stuff
that we "need" to import, such as food!

If the UK is outside the EU, what do you mean by unilaterally? In
contravention of WTO rules?

An independant UK is never going to have a problem importing goods. Why
would it? Apart from perhaps strategically sensitive stuff like arms, etc.

The difficult bit is exporting stuff - to pay for all those imports.

--
*Santa Claus has the right idea. Visit people only once a year.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 12:31:36 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
tim... wrote:
Again, as I understand it, neither the UK nor the EU currently has a
trade deal with the USA - this is what TTIP is all about, but hasn't
yet been agreed. But we *still* do a lot of trade with the US.

[As far as I can see, TTIP would be bad news for us anyway - so if
we're not in the EU at the time when it's finally agreed, so much the
better!]

As currently "leaked" it seems to be a bad deal for many of the
countries of the EU.

The negotiators seem to be doing a **** poor job at representing the
interests of the countries that they are negotiating for and what they
end up with stands every chance of being voted down when it gets to the
council of ministers - in 30 years time :-)

True. Yet the BREXITs are adamant we will be able to agree advantageous
trade deals around the world after leaving the EU easily and quickly.
And also with the EU.

Of course it will be quick and easy

| Meeting at the WTO in Geneva, ambassadors from the EU and Latin
American countries today agreed to end a *15-year dispute* over EU banana
imports

But that's fine cos we won't be negotiating with Latin American companies
as can be seen from the following:

|All but 2 of the top-10 trading partners of the UK belong to the
European Union. The UKs main trading partner in 2014 was Germany, which
accounted for 12.3% of all UK trade in that year. In second position was
the United States (9.5%), followed by the Netherlands (7.5%), China (7.3%
) and France (5.9%). Together, these 10 countries accounted for 61.4% of
UK trade in 2014.

Phew, that's a relief - the companies we would want agreements with are
mostly in the EU. Oh no! we are wanting to leave the EU.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/20...eu-would-mean-
renegotiating-more-than-100-trade-agreements/

Mark Allread wrote:

|All but 2 of the top-10 trading partners of the UK belong to the
European Union. The UKs main trading partner in 2014 was Germany, which
accounted for 12.3% of all UK trade in that year. In second position was
the United States (9.5%), followed by the Netherlands (7.5%), China (7.3%
) and France (5.9%). Together, these 10 countries accounted for 61.4% of
UK trade in 2014.

Phew, that's a relief - the companies we would want agreements with are
mostly in the EU. Oh no! we are wanting to leave the EU.

Though the only EU country from that list which we have net exports to
is Ireland (Switzerland if you include EEA countries).

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/20...eu-would-mean-
renegotiating-more-than-100-trade-agreements/

On 18/06/16 13:33, Andy Burns wrote:
Mark Allread wrote:

|All but 2 of the top-10 trading partners of the UK belong to the
European Union. The UKs main trading partner in 2014 was Germany, which
accounted for 12.3% of all UK trade in that year. In second position was
the United States (9.5%), followed by the Netherlands (7.5%), China (7.3%
) and France (5.9%). Together, these 10 countries accounted for 61.4% of
UK trade in 2014.

Phew, that's a relief - the companies we would want agreements with are
mostly in the EU. Oh no! we are wanting to leave the EU.

Though the only EU country from that list which we have net exports to
is Ireland (Switzerland if you include EEA countries).

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/20...eu-would-mean-
renegotiating-more-than-100-trade-agreements/


yeah we wouldn't want to go back to the pre EEC days when you couldn't
buy a bottle of French wine, take a holiday ins spain and there simply
were no german cars on the roads at all.

And all you could get in the shops were new zealand lamb and butter,
Argentinian beef, and south african fruits, and bananas from the carribean.

And we had to watch American films. and listen to American music. And
eat in Indian restaurants.

I mean we couldn't even listen to Francoise Hardy, Or Jaques Brel, till
we joined the Common Market.

Ive just realised why I want Brexit after all ;-)



--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Mark Allread wrote:

|All but 2 of the top-10 trading partners of the UK belong to the
European Union. The UK‘s main trading partner in 2014 was Germany,
which accounted for 12.3% of all UK trade in that year. In second
position was the United States (9.5%), followed by the Netherlands
(7.5%), China (7.3% ) and France (5.9%). Together, these 10 countries
accounted for 61.4% of UK trade in 2014.

Phew, that's a relief - the companies we would want agreements with
are mostly in the EU. Oh no! we are wanting to leave the EU.

Though the only EU country from that list which we have net exports to
is Ireland (Switzerland if you include EEA countries).

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/20...eu-would-mean-
renegotiating-more-than-100-trade-agreements/

Right. So only trade with countries where you export more to than import
from. The BREXIT theory of economics. The fag packets are getting smaller
these days.

--
*A 'jiffy' is an actual unit of time for 1/100th of a second.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Mark Allread wrote:

|All but 2 of the top-10 trading partners of the UK belong to the
European Union. The UK‘s main trading partner in 2014 was Germany,
which accounted for 12.3% of all UK trade in that year. In second
position was the United States (9.5%), followed by the Netherlands
(7.5%), China (7.3% ) and France (5.9%). Together, these 10 countries
accounted for 61.4% of UK trade in 2014.

Phew, that's a relief - the companies we would want agreements with
are mostly in the EU. Oh no! we are wanting to leave the EU.

Though the only EU country from that list which we have net exports to
is Ireland (Switzerland if you include EEA countries).

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/20...eu-would-mean-
renegotiating-more-than-100-trade-agreements/

Right. So only trade with countries where you export more to than import
from. The BREXIT theory of economics. The fag packets are getting smaller
these days.

well, no. You could, once upon a time, buy Woodbines in packets of 5.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 18/06/2016 10:16, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:36:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It's also why we separate trade deals are utterly pointless while
we're in the EU - because if the UK applied zero duty to US goods in
a category, but Germany didn't, we could buy the same things through
Germany and not pay the duty.

I have read the above three times, and am still scratching my head.

Sorry. You're right. What I meant to say was that if the UK applied
duty,
but Germany didn't.

Why on earth would we?

Let's say that the UK wanted to put a 20% duty on steel imported from
China.

But Germany didn't. But we can import steel from Germany without any duty.


Bad argument. The EU wanted to impose restrictions on Chinese steel,
but Cameron persuaded them to water their proposals down,
presumably because he wanted to kow-tow to the Chinese.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

the only EU country from that list which we have net exports to
is Ireland

Right. So only trade with countries where you export more to than import
from.

Did I say that?

It was left as an exercise for the reader to work out that for the other
countries, they have more of a vested interest in a trade deal with us,
than we do with them ...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
We will use standard WTO rules until we can negotiate something better.

We will almost certainly, unilaterally remove import tariffs from stuff
that we "need" to import, such as food!

If the UK is outside the EU, what do you mean by unilaterally? In
contravention of WTO rules?

WTO rules allow you to apply tariffs (to imports), they don't mandate it.

Currently we apply tariffs to food from ROW because the EU requires us to do
so to protect the vested interests of inefficient EU farmers.

If we left the EU we would have no need to be protectionist and would
(probably) remove all tariffs from imported foodstuffs, even if the other
countries that we import from did not reciprocate.

An independant UK is never going to have a problem importing goods.

Correct

but there is no need for us to make it artificially more expensive like we
do at the moment

Why
would it? Apart from perhaps strategically sensitive stuff like arms, etc.

The difficult bit is exporting stuff - to pay for all those imports.

As I have said more than once, the majority of our exports are of "quality"
and specialist products. The demand for those would not go away

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
there are hundreds of country pairs that happily trade with each other
without a separate deal in place. the idea that it is difficult is
nonsense

Can you name a pair of countries that trade happily with no formal
trade deal?

I meant other than standard WTO rules

(I rather thought that was obvious in the context of my other
contributions)

I'd not really call that a formal trade deal. More of a blanket one.

If it were just fine, why bother with any other deals?

TBH, I don't know

The official line that having a deal between country A and country B
increases the wealth of both countries by billions looks somewhat bogus to
me.

If every county A and every country B enter into a trade deal that would
mean that the wealth of the world would be increased by gazillions.

But, of course, that is not possible. I'm only going to buy the same number
of pairs of shoes each year after all the agreements are signed than before,
so I can't see where this extra economic activity is going to come from.

ISTM that individual trade deals are just a world wide Ponzi scheme where
only the early entrants win.

Much better to work to reduce WTO tariffs IMHO.

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Again, as I understand it, neither the UK nor the EU currently has a
trade deal with the USA - this is what TTIP is all about, but hasn't
yet been agreed. But we *still* do a lot of trade with the US.

[As far as I can see, TTIP would be bad news for us anyway - so if
we're not in the EU at the time when it's finally agreed, so much the
better!]

As currently "leaked" it seems to be a bad deal for many of the
countries of the EU.

The negotiators seem to be doing a **** poor job at representing the
interests of the countries that they are negotiating for and what they
end up with stands every chance of being voted down when it gets to the
council of ministers - in 30 years time :-)

True. Yet the BREXITs are adamant we will be able to agree advantageous
trade deals around the world after leaving the EU easily and quickly.

I think that's a relative "quick", it isn't a claim that it will be done by
next year.

They mean within say, 5 years instead of waiting for the EU to do it in 15.

tim

On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 13:50:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 18/06/16 13:33, Andy Burns wrote:
Mark Allread wrote:

|All but 2 of the top-10 trading partners of the UK belong to the
European Union. The UKs main trading partner in 2014 was Germany,
which accounted for 12.3% of all UK trade in that year. In second
position was the United States (9.5%), followed by the Netherlands
(7.5%), China (7.3% ) and France (5.9%). Together, these 10 countries
accounted for 61.4% of UK trade in 2014.

Phew, that's a relief - the companies we would want agreements with
are mostly in the EU. Oh no! we are wanting to leave the EU.

Though the only EU country from that list which we have net exports to
is Ireland (Switzerland if you include EEA countries).

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/20...-the-eu-would-
mean-
renegotiating-more-than-100-trade-agreements/


yeah we wouldn't want to go back to the pre EEC days when

the UK was part of EFTA

or do you want to go back even earlier than that?

"Mark Allread" wrote in message
o.uk...
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 12:31:36 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
tim... wrote:
Again, as I understand it, neither the UK nor the EU currently has a
trade deal with the USA - this is what TTIP is all about, but hasn't
yet been agreed. But we *still* do a lot of trade with the US.

[As far as I can see, TTIP would be bad news for us anyway - so if
we're not in the EU at the time when it's finally agreed, so much the
better!]

As currently "leaked" it seems to be a bad deal for many of the
countries of the EU.

The negotiators seem to be doing a **** poor job at representing the
interests of the countries that they are negotiating for and what they
end up with stands every chance of being voted down when it gets to the
council of ministers - in 30 years time :-)

True. Yet the BREXITs are adamant we will be able to agree advantageous
trade deals around the world after leaving the EU easily and quickly.
And also with the EU.

Of course it will be quick and easy

| Meeting at the WTO in Geneva, ambassadors from the EU and Latin
American countries today agreed to end a *15-year dispute* over EU banana
imports

But that's fine cos we won't be negotiating with Latin American companies
as can be seen from the following:

|All but 2 of the top-10 trading partners of the UK belong to the
European Union. The UKs main trading partner in 2014 was Germany, which
accounted for 12.3% of all UK trade in that year. In second position was
the United States (9.5%), followed by the Netherlands (7.5%), China (7.3%
) and France (5.9%). Together, these 10 countries accounted for 61.4% of
UK trade in 2014.

Phew, that's a relief - the companies we would want agreements with are
mostly in the EU.

but that's the world's stagnating economy

We wont be "leaving" the EU for this year or next year, we will be doing if
for the next 20, 30, 40 years. It is the Asian and South American countries
that are growing richer every year that we need to increase trade with, and
it is the EU introspectiveness that is holding us (and all the other EU
countries) back from that.

tim

In article ,
charles wrote:
Right. So only trade with countries where you export more to than
import from. The BREXIT theory of economics. The fag packets are
getting smaller these days.

well, no. You could, once upon a time, buy Woodbines in packets of 5.

I can remember packets of two. Given away as promotions.

Nige, of course, wants all the anti-smoking laws repealed. You just know
freedom makes sense.

--
*Elephants are the only mammals that can't jump *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:42:16 +0100, Andrew wrote:

Let's say that the UK wanted to put a 20% duty on steel imported from
China.

But Germany didn't. But we can import steel from Germany without any
duty.

Bad argument. The EU wanted to impose restrictions on Chinese steel,
but Cameron persuaded them to water their proposals down, presumably
because he wanted to kow-tow to the Chinese.

sigh Widgets, then. The product is irrelevant to the explanation.

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

the only EU country from that list which we have net exports to is
Ireland

Right. So only trade with countries where you export more to than
import from.

Did I say that?

It was left as an exercise for the reader to work out that for the other
countries, they have more of a vested interest in a trade deal with us,
than we do with them ...

But those countries being part of the EU can't negotiate a deal with us
individually. Which is rather obvious because once our goods arrive at an
EU country, they would then be within the EU and subject to free movement.

It's never going to be a problem for us to import from a country.

--
*Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
We will use standard WTO rules until we can negotiate something
better.

We will almost certainly, unilaterally remove import tariffs from
stuff that we "need" to import, such as food!

If the UK is outside the EU, what do you mean by unilaterally? In
contravention of WTO rules?

WTO rules allow you to apply tariffs (to imports), they don't mandate it.

Currently we apply tariffs to food from ROW because the EU requires us
to do so to protect the vested interests of inefficient EU farmers.
Including our own, as it happens.

If we left the EU we would have no need to be protectionist and would
(probably) remove all tariffs from imported foodstuffs, even if the
other countries that we import from did not reciprocate.

Think you'd find our farmers up in arms if you allowed all and any food
imports from the very cheapest source. But perhaps that's what you want?

An independant UK is never going to have a problem importing goods.

Correct

but there is no need for us to make it artificially more expensive like
we do at the moment

Odd the recent calls we had for tariffs on Chinese steel, then?

Why would it? Apart from perhaps strategically sensitive stuff like
arms, etc.

The difficult bit is exporting stuff - to pay for all those imports.

As I have said more than once, the majority of our exports are of
"quality" and specialist products. The demand for those would not go
away

And you think the price of those goods doesn't matter? Everyone will rush
to buy them regardless because they are unique?

Be interesting to know what they are, though.

--
*Ever stop to think and forget to start again?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 18/06/16 16:04, Mark Allread wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 13:50:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 18/06/16 13:33, Andy Burns wrote:
Mark Allread wrote:

|All but 2 of the top-10 trading partners of the UK belong to the
European Union. The UKs main trading partner in 2014 was Germany,
which accounted for 12.3% of all UK trade in that year. In second
position was the United States (9.5%), followed by the Netherlands
(7.5%), China (7.3% ) and France (5.9%). Together, these 10 countries
accounted for 61.4% of UK trade in 2014.

Phew, that's a relief - the companies we would want agreements with
are mostly in the EU. Oh no! we are wanting to leave the EU.

Though the only EU country from that list which we have net exports to
is Ireland (Switzerland if you include EEA countries).

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/20...-the-eu-would-
mean-
renegotiating-more-than-100-trade-agreements/


yeah we wouldn't want to go back to the pre EEC days when

the UK was part of EFTA

or do you want to go back even earlier than that?

I wouldn't want to go back at all.. ;-)

I had cold knees, short trousers and a jumper that made me itch.

--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

In article ,
tim... wrote:
I'd not really call that a formal trade deal. More of a blanket one.

If it were just fine, why bother with any other deals?

TBH, I don't know

The official line that having a deal between country A and country B
increases the wealth of both countries by billions looks somewhat bogus
to me.

Set up a trade deal with a country.

You'll then have some interchange of personnel to deal with the nuts and
bolts of that deal. Those people form friends locally. Tourism may result.
Other types of businesses get recommended - like banks and financial
services, etc. Universities. Research. All the things the UK is good at
now we are no longer the workshop of the world.

It is far more than 'you trade me some wheat for eggs' in passing.

--
*A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kickboxing.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Andy wrote:

Mark Allread wrote:


|All but 2 of the top-10 trading partners of the UK belong to the
European Union. The UK‘s main trading partner in 2014 was Germany,
which accounted for 12.3% of all UK trade in that year. In second
position was the United States (9.5%), followed by the Netherlands
(7.5%), China (7.3% ) and France (5.9%). Together, these 10 countries
accounted for 61.4% of UK trade in 2014.

Phew, that's a relief - the companies we would want agreements with
are mostly in the EU. Oh no! we are wanting to leave the EU.


Though the only EU country from that list which we have net exports to
is Ireland (Switzerland if you include EEA countries).


http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/20...eu-would-mean-
renegotiating-more-than-100-trade-agreements/

Right. So only trade with countries where you export more to than import
from. The BREXIT theory of economics. The fag packets are getting smaller
these days.



Like the wages of the workers if we stay in!

In article ,
tim... wrote:
We wont be "leaving" the EU for this year or next year, we will be doing
if for the next 20, 30, 40 years.

Not so. It's accepted it will take about 2 years.

After that, it will be prolonged negotiations to reach a new deal. If the
EU still exists as now, guaranteed worse that the one we have at the
moment.

It is the Asian and South American countries that are growing richer
every year that we need to increase trade with, and it is the EU
introspectiveness that is holding us (and all the other EU countries)
back from that.

And all those countries want a deal with the EU - not the UK on its own.

I really don't think you've any idea just how involved it is negotiating a
deal with another country. It's not done by a couple of people over a pint
one evening. There may well be a handshake between leaders that gets the
publicity as an intention - but then the real work starts.

--
*My luck is so bad that if I bought a cemetery, people would stop dying.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Nige, of course, wants all the anti-smoking laws repealed. You just know
freedom makes sense.



People should be free to make their own foolish decisions, just as
you do!

Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

the only EU country from that list which we have net exports to
is Ireland

Right. So only trade with countries where you export more to than import
from.

Did I say that?

It was left as an exercise for the reader to work out that for the
other countries, they have more of a vested interest in a trade deal
with us, than we do with them ...



Some readers fail the exercise.

Andrew wrote:
On 18/06/2016 10:16, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:36:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It's also why we separate trade deals are utterly pointless while
we're in the EU - because if the UK applied zero duty to US goods in
a category, but Germany didn't, we could buy the same things through
Germany and not pay the duty.

I have read the above three times, and am still scratching my head.

Sorry. You're right. What I meant to say was that if the UK applied
duty,
but Germany didn't.

Why on earth would we?

Let's say that the UK wanted to put a 20% duty on steel imported from
China.

But Germany didn't. But we can import steel from Germany without any
duty.


Bad argument. The EU wanted to impose restrictions on Chinese steel,
but Cameron persuaded them to water their proposals down,
presumably because he wanted to kow-tow to the Chinese.


Agreed.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

We wont be "leaving" the EU for this year or next year, we will be doing
if for the next 20, 30, 40 years.

Not so. It's accepted it will take about 2 years.

After that, it will be prolonged negotiations to reach a new deal. If the
EU still exists as now, guaranteed worse that the one we have at the
moment.


It is the Asian and South American countries that are growing richer
every year that we need to increase trade with, and it is the EU
introspectiveness that is holding us (and all the other EU countries)
back from that.

And all those countries want a deal with the EU - not the UK on its own.

I really don't think you've any idea just how involved it is negotiating a
deal with another country. It's not done by a couple of people over a pint
one evening. There may well be a handshake between leaders that gets the
publicity as an intention - but then the real work starts.


Having done international agreements, I agree, as everyone has
different selfish objectives but in the interim, trade continues
without problems IME.

On 18/06/16 17:19, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
We wont be "leaving" the EU for this year or next year, we will be doing
if for the next 20, 30, 40 years.
Not so. It's accepted it will take about 2 years.

After that, it will be prolonged negotiations to reach a new deal. If the
EU still exists as now, guaranteed worse that the one we have at the
moment.

It is the Asian and South American countries that are growing richer
every year that we need to increase trade with, and it is the EU
introspectiveness that is holding us (and all the other EU countries)
back from that.
And all those countries want a deal with the EU - not the UK on its own.

I really don't think you've any idea just how involved it is
negotiating a
deal with another country. It's not done by a couple of people over a
pint
one evening. There may well be a handshake between leaders that gets the
publicity as an intention - but then the real work starts.

Having done international agreements, I agree, as everyone has
different selfish objectives but in the interim, trade continues
without problems IME.

Exactly., Default trade is 'I have beads and blankets, you give me woman OK?

Smuggling is trade carried on ignoring tariffs It has a long and ignoble
history.

Tariffs have always been erected by governments to protect local
pressure groups from competition.

Which is what the EU does., erects EU industries from global comepetion.
Which is why trade deals take so long.

--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

Dave Plowman wrote:

But those countries being part of the EU can't negotiate a deal with us
individually. Which is rather obvious because once our goods arrive at an
EU country, they would then be within the EU and subject to free movement.

It's never going to be a problem for us to import from a country.

If you want to be meek about it, yes you can make it easy for Brits to
buy Passats by setting a 0% post-brexit import duty on cars from the EU
(same as now).

Or if you want to play a little hard-ball, you charge the same duty as
for an Accord (10% since they're not made in Swindon), You now have VW
and Renault's attention. Then you do the same for white goods and get
Bosch and Ariston's attention ... soon "they" want a deal with us, as
much as we want a deal with them, rather than us letting them not need one.

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

But those countries being part of the EU can't negotiate a deal with
us individually. Which is rather obvious because once our goods arrive
at an EU country, they would then be within the EU and subject to free
movement.

It's never going to be a problem for us to import from a country.

If you want to be meek about it, yes you can make it easy for Brits to
buy Passats by setting a 0% post-brexit import duty on cars from the EU
(same as now).

Entirely down to the UK.

Or if you want to play a little hard-ball, you charge the same duty as
for an Accord (10% since they're not made in Swindon), You now have VW
and Renault's attention. Then you do the same for white goods and get
Bosch and Ariston's attention ... soon "they" want a deal with us, as
much as we want a deal with them, rather than us letting them not need
one.

Of course. Tariffs in each direction are inevitable. So the UK will make a
new deal with the EU, if they want to.

What is more to the point is how important that trade is to each unit.
Trade with the EU is a far smaller percentage of its total trade than it
is with the UK. So can you really see the likes of Germany and France
giving in to this sort of blackmail easily? What do you think the average
German or Frenchman would say if the EU keeled over to the UK?

--
*People want trepanners like they want a hole in the head*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
tim... wrote

Again, as I understand it, neither the UK nor the EU currently has a
trade deal with the USA - this is what TTIP is all about, but hasn't
yet been agreed. But we *still* do a lot of trade with the US.

[As far as I can see, TTIP would be bad news for us anyway - so if we're
not in the EU at the time when it's finally agreed, so much the better!]

As currently "leaked" it seems to be a bad deal for many of the
countries of the EU.

The negotiators seem to be doing a **** poor job at representing the
interests of the countries that they are negotiating for and what they
end up with stands every chance of being voted down when it gets to the
council of ministers - in 30 years time :-)

True. Yet the BREXITs are adamant we will be able to agree advantageous
trade deals around the world after leaving the EU easily and quickly. And
also with the EU.

Nope, they rub you nose in the fact that no trade deal is necessary.
The US, India, China, Japan, Bangladesh etc etc etc all trade very
effectively with any trade deal with anyone much at all. Why
shouldn’t Britain be able to do that too ?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
tim... wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
tim... wrote\

there are hundreds of country pairs that happily trade with each other
without a separate deal in place. the idea that it is difficult is
nonsense

Can you name a pair of countries that trade happily with no formal trade
deal?

I meant other than standard WTO rules

(I rather thought that was obvious in the context of my other
contributions)

I'd not really call that a formal trade deal. More of a blanket one.

If it were just fine, why bother with any other deals?

Because some like the TPPI go rather further.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
tim... wrote

We will use standard WTO rules until we can negotiate something better.

We will almost certainly, unilaterally remove import
tariffs from stuff that we "need" to import, such as food!

If the UK is outside the EU, what do you mean by unilaterally?

Doing what Britain decides it wants to do without consulting anyone.

In contravention of WTO rules?

No WTO rule has anything to say about removing tariffs from the food
Britain needs to import. Perfectly acceptable within the WTO rules.

An independant UK is never going to have a problem importing goods.

And is free to remove any existing tariffs that the EU
requires it has on those imports and so get them cheaper.

Why would it? Apart from perhaps strategically sensitive stuff like arms,
etc.

The difficult bit is exporting stuff

How odd that the US, China, Japan, India, Canada, Australia etc etc etc
manage to export fine without any trade agreement involving those.

- to pay for all those imports.

"tim..." wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
there are hundreds of country pairs that happily trade with each
other
without a separate deal in place. the idea that it is difficult is
nonsense

Can you name a pair of countries that trade happily with no formal
trade deal?

I meant other than standard WTO rules

(I rather thought that was obvious in the context of my other
contributions)

I'd not really call that a formal trade deal. More of a blanket one.

If it were just fine, why bother with any other deals?

TBH, I don't know

The official line that having a deal between country A and country B
increases the wealth of both countries by billions looks somewhat bogus to
me.

If every county A and every country B enter into a trade deal that would
mean that the wealth of the world would be increased by gazillions.

But, of course, that is not possible. I'm only going to buy the same
number of pairs of shoes each year after all the agreements are signed
than before, so I can't see where this extra economic activity is going to
come from.

ISTM that individual trade deals are just a world wide Ponzi scheme where
only the early entrants win.

That's not really true. The current fad/fashion to have FREE trade
deals means that we don't get slugged any duty or tariff on the
trade so all the buyers benefit from that reduction in that slug.

There is no Ponzi involved at all, everyone really does
win when the trade agreement sees the tariffs binned.

Much better to work to reduce WTO tariffs IMHO.

But much harder to achieve that. The Doha Round
has essentially stalled for various reasons.

On Saturday, 18 June 2016 18:13:09 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
Or if you want to play a little hard-ball, you charge the same duty as
for an Accord (10% since they're not made in Swindon), You now have VW
and Renault's attention. Then you do the same for white goods and get
Bosch and Ariston's attention ... soon "they" want a deal with us, as
much as we want a deal with them, rather than us letting them not need one.

Or without all the EU regulatory overhead we just buy even more stuff from China on Ebay.

Owain

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
tim... wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
tim... wrote

WTO rules allow you to apply tariffs (to imports), they don't mandate it.

Currently we apply tariffs to food from ROW because the EU requires
us to do so to protect the vested interests of inefficient EU farmers.

Including our own, as it happens.

Not really given how much of Britain's food is imported.

If we left the EU we would have no need to be protectionist and
would (probably) remove all tariffs from imported foodstuffs, even
if the other countries that we import from did not reciprocate.

Think you'd find our farmers up in arms if you allowed
all and any food imports from the very cheapest source.

How odd that they didn’t before Britain joined the EFTA and EEC.

But perhaps that's what you want?

An independant UK is never going to have a problem importing goods.

Correct

but there is no need for us to make it artificially
more expensive like we do at the moment

Odd the recent calls we had for tariffs on Chinese steel, then?

Even you should notice that isnt food.

Why would it? Apart from perhaps
strategically sensitive stuff like arms, etc.

The difficult bit is exporting stuff - to pay for all those imports.

As I have said more than once, the majority of our exports are of
"quality"
and specialist products. The demand for those would not go away

And you think the price of those goods doesn't matter?

With some of them like docos and drama from the BBC
and ITV, yep, because no one else does anything like them.

Everyone will rush to buy them regardless because they are unique?

Not rush to buy them, just continue to buy them like they do now.

Be interesting to know what they are, though.

Docos and drama from the BBC and ITV.
Aircraft engines from RR. Scotch etc.
Still a few cars like RRs etc.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
tim... wrote

The official line that having a deal between country A
and country B increases the wealth of both countries
by billions looks somewhat bogus to me.

Set up a trade deal with a country.

You'll then have some interchange of personnel to deal with the nuts and
bolts of that deal. Those people form friends locally. Tourism may result.

Can't see much of that with the TTIP.

Or with any of these either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

Other types of businesses get recommended - like banks and
financial services, etc. Universities. Research. All the things the
UK is good at now we are no longer the workshop of the world.

Sure, but you don’t need a trade deal to get those. Britain does plenty
of that with India and China etc etc etc without any trade deal involved.

It is far more than 'you trade me some wheat for eggs' in passing.

Doesn’t need any trade agreement tho.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
tim... wrote

We wont be "leaving" the EU for this year or next
year, we will be doing if for the next 20, 30, 40 years.

Not so. It's accepted it will take about 2 years.

He meant that Britain wont be leaving FOR the result in this year or next,
but
for the result for the next 20, 30, 40 years, not how long it takes to
leave.

After that, it will be prolonged negotiations to reach a new deal.

Or not if the EU tries to ensure a ****ty deal to
discourage others from considering leaving.

If the EU still exists as now, guaranteed worse
that the one we have at the moment.

Yes, but likely better trade wise for Britain because it will
be free to import whatever it needs from anywhere it likes
without having any tariffs applied, instead of what the EU
forces it to have tariff/duty wise currently. Sure, those in
the EU that want to continue to import what they currently
import from Britain will have to pay a small tariff/duty on that
stuff, but if the pound does drop a bit that wont necessarily
cost the anymore.

It is the Asian and South American countries that are
growing richer every year that we need to increase trade
with, and it is the EU introspectiveness that is holding us
(and all the other EU countries) back from that.

And all those countries want a deal with the EU - not the UK on its own.

That remains to be seen. Given that it will likely be MUCH
easier to get one with Britain on its own than with the EU,
just because there arent 28 separate countrys that can say
that they don’t want an agreement that non EU country,
it may well be that they actually get one with Britain
much more quickly than with the EU.

I really don't think you've any idea just how involved
it is negotiating a deal with another country.

You clearly don’t.

It's not done by a couple of people over a pint one evening.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

There may well be a handshake between leaders that gets
the publicity as an intention - but then the real work starts.

Duh. And the real work will have started long before
the pollys shake hands in front of the cameras.