Reply With Quoteas it is - it's nothing more than a proposed idea....59'60 - as there remains a Vote on it to be had...you know !Originally Posted by 1959_60
Hall Of Fame
On your head be it Alto!
Hall Of Fame
as it is - it's nothing more than a proposed idea....59'60 - as there remains a Vote on it to be had...you know !
Hall Of Fame
What could possibly go wrong Norder?
Hall Of Fame
Whatever agreement was made with N Ireland years ago will have to be altered, we are in a different situation now.
We are supposed to be in the 21st Century, folk living on one side of the border and working in the other can be done.
I keep saying, this deal is no good, the next deal (if any) will be no good, just leave, that's what the folk wanted in the first place and most probably still do, it will not be the end of our world with all this scare tactics that are being banded about to force our hand, the truth is nobody knows how it will work out, but its got to be better than bending over while the EU shaft us again and again.
Hall Of Fame
Well Alto, your option seems most likely at the moment.
Leaving without a deal in 19 weeks time.
And may God have mercy on our souls.
Hall Of Fame
.
they started the phook up a very very long time ago, and are still at it - so guess they must enjoy it.... 59'60What could possibly go wrong Norder?
anyway - unless the lands split apart or there was some stronger unification (either way) - it'll remain so....So what's to be done - work the deal around the Ireland problem - because that'll make things nice and even ?....but that would be silly - as fact is, the major part of us doesn't have a land border with the E.U....so us on the big land are in a better position to wash ourselves further from that totalitarian bureaucrappy than the us on the Ireland side - it's tough - but that's just the physical nature of it....so only makes sense that there'd be some form of contrasting agreement - and as for the negotiatons/ the deal so far....after two years of wrangling - we're essentially, only going to kind of leave the E.U - as will remain under E.U control/rules for the next few years...when at which time, both sides will again try to work on a deal...and if they don't - then another extension - and on and on it goes....so if that's the best that "May" and cronies have managed to secure after years of work - then can't believe that anyone in their right mind - could even consider supporting it/her/or them.... .
Hall Of Fame
You appear to misunderstand the meaning of 'control' 59/60. It doesn't mean border guards with alsations, watch towers and barbed wire, although it could if that's what the government wanted, it means our government controls the decision making process and policy on immigration into our country, who has the right to live here, stay here, work here etc. We decide, not the EU. If we want to allow more people in we can, if we want to allow fewer in we can. We decide, we control the policy.
I'm not sure just why you appear to have a problem with this, there's nothing at all contentious about it, it's the default position of every country in the world except those in the EU. It also means that if we had a LibDem government and they chose to have free movement, open borders, then we would, it would be their choice, they would have control of immigration policy.
I think it's a fairly simple concept really, hopefully you've grasped it now ?
Hall Of Fame
Exactly Alto, let the traitors moan and whinge, we just need to cut our ties to this vile organisation. They're now saying we'll have to pay an extra £10 billion if we extend the period before we leave for just another year. That's £50 billion plus they're talking now. How many hospitals, doctors and nurses could we pay for with that ? Let's just get the **** out and spend it on the NHS instead, we could transform it with that sort of money.
On the so called Irish border problem, this what Brexit Minister and trained lawyer Suella Braverman has to say about it,
"the proposals in the Northern Ireland Backstop set out different regulatory regimes for Northern Ireland and Great Britain threatening the precious Union in the west and fuelling the fire of Scottish Nationalist calls for a second independence referendum in the north.
Whilst I entirely understand the complexities of this issue, I am confident- having met with customs professionals in my role at the Department - that such a break-up of the Union could have been avoided with the use of pre-border checks, technology and exemptions for the vast majority of small traders who operate at the border.
Sadly the Northern Irish border has been confected into a ‘problem’ rather than an opportunity. Only the historians will know whether it has been by design or incompetence."
Just confirms what I've been saying for some time now, it's a problem confected by the EU and Eire in order to trap us in the EU, while they extort as much money as they can from us. She talks about using technology to help solve the problem, the EU says it can't be done. Bear in mind it's more than 50 years since we developed the technology to put men on the moon, but we haven't the technology to carry out a few border checks in Ireland. Aye alright, pull the other one.
Hall Of Fame
Ruth Lea, economic advisor at the Arbuthnot Banking Group, explains back in August why trading under WTO rules is not the cliff edge the Remoaners would like us to think it is.
"I have been an advocate of a straightforward Canada-style free trade agreement with the EU for several years and indeed still am. Given our close trading relationship with the EU, which will naturally continue when we leave the Single Market and the Customs Union, tariff-free trade is a bonus. I have also supported a special deal for financial services, based on enhanced regulatory equivalence. Without spending too much time on the pluses and minuses of this model, there was another clear advantage to this approach. Yes, it would benefit the UK on Brexit, but it would also clearly benefit the EU27 with their huge visible trade surplus in goods (£95bn in 2017, over £31bn with Germany alone) and their beneficial business relationships with the City of London. So, one would have thought, such a deal could have been agreed relatively easily. However, political events have conspired against this outcome and it is reasonable to assume that it is now extremely unlikely that, if there is an agreement by the end of the year on the future UK-EU trade relationship, it will be Canada-style deal. Granted there are rumours and counter-rumours this may yet be considered, but politically it does not seem feasible. Too many concessions have been made, that cannot be unmade. And, if there is a “trade deal”, it is almost certain it will be based (however loosely) on Chequers.
This is, of course, a political judgement and I may yet be proved to be wrong. We shall see. However, assuming I am right we are now clearly faced with two main options. The first is, of course, a Chequers-style agreement, which incidentally may or may not translate itself into a Treaty during the transition period. Nothing can be guaranteed. Such an outcome strikes me as the “worst of all worlds.” I am aware that there are voices claiming that a Chequers-style agreement would not really be much of a problem because it could be rectified “later”. Well maybe yes or maybe no. But, in the meantime, we would be stuck in BRINO limbo that could persist for years. The second option is to accept a “deal” on the future trade relationship (along with the weaponised Irish border maybe) has proved impossible, shake hands and leave with “no deal”. Presumably March’s Withdrawal Agreement, which covered the transition period, citizens’ rights and the financial settlement, would then bite the dust. Meanwhile negotiations would (presumably) continue to finalise administrative matters such as aviation, visas, residency, passports and customs administration prior to Brexit, if they had not already been finalised. Our trade with the EU with then be conducted under WTO rules after 29 March 2019, the “WTO option”, unless or until the UK and the EU negotiated a mutually beneficial trade deal when the UK would be a third country. The WTO option: clearly preferable to Chequers Much has been written on the policy restrictions inherent in the Chequers proposals of 6 July. Briefly, I see them as:
Firstly, it would severely restrict any future government’s freedom for regulatory reform across a wide range of regulations.
Secondly, the UK would continue to be a “rule-taker” from the EU vis-ą-vis many regulations, but without influence.
Thirdly, adherence to the EU’s rulebook on goods will almost certainly restrict the scope of free trade agreements with third countries.
Most trade agreements today are about far more than tariffs, and deal with the removal or reduction of non-tariff barriers which arise from differing regulatory laws or systems. Sticking with the EU’s rulebook would inevitably restrict out negotiating freedom. President Trump was absolutely right when he, initially, said the Chequers proposals would “kill” a UK-US trade deal.
If one accepts that the economic “raison d’etre” for Brexit was to free up the British economy, have scope for regulatory reform and form closer trading ties with the fast-growing parts of the world economy, then the Chequers’ proposals are clearly profoundly flawed. The WTO option, on the other hand, would provide complete freedom for regulatory reform and trade negotiations. It is clearly preferable. It is the forward-looking, global option. Moreover, it, most emphatically, is not about “falling off cliffs” or “falling into chasms” or other such nonsense.
Incidentally, I am bemused by the cranking up of the scaremongering, Project Fear Mark 2, if there is “no deal.” Remember the warnings from the Treasury prior to the June 2016 referendum at the height of Project Fear Mark 1, “…a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000”. Really? I have little doubt the foundations of Project Fear Mark 2 are as flimsy as Mark 1.
Trading under WTO rules. Several excellent pieces have been written on key aspects of the WTO option, not least of all those featuring on the BrexitCentral website. I reference them with a must-read note from Economists for Free Trade (EFT) below, and will not repeat their analysis in detail.1-4 However, some points need making over and over again. The first point concerns the UK’s membership of the WTO. We are members and we will continue to be members. In October 2016 Roberto Azevźdo, the Director General of the WTO, made this very clear. He said “…the UK is a member of the WTO today, it will continue to be a member tomorrow. There will be no discontinuity in membership. They have to renegotiate [their terms of membership] but that doesn’t mean they are not members. Trade will not stop, it will continue and members will negotiate the legal basis under which that trade is going to happen. But it doesn’t mean that we’ll have a vacuum or a disruption. He could not have been clearer. Secondly, disciplined rules based on the principle of non-discrimination are at the heart of the WTO’s trading regime. Concerning tariff barriers for goods (services do not have tariffs), WTO members must not treat any member less advantageously than any other, unless they form preferential trade agreements or customs unions. On non-tariff barriers for goods, the WTO’s rules clearly limit the circumstances in which they can be applied. Specifically on product standards, a country cannot discriminate against exporters. Once a “domestic” standard has been imposed, it must be generalised to foreign countries’ exporters. This is especially relevant as the UK will be compliant with the EU’s standards on Brexit Day.
Turning to services, the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) also operates on the principle of non-discrimination, meaning broadly that outside preferential agreements, restrictions on market access must be applied uniformly across all countries. Trade disputes between member states are dealt with by the WTO’s Dispute Settlement System (DSS). Thirdly, the WTO has made huge strides in facilitating trade across customs borders in recent years. Under the landmark Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), developed countries with adequate resources are expected to install state-of-the-art border systems in order that trade should not be impeded. Most countries now permit traders to submit their customs documentation electronically in advance of the goods arriving at the border. Virtually all submissions of the EU’s own Single Administrative Document (SAD), for declaring imports and exports, are now made online, for example. This means that most trade arriving from countries that are members of neither the Single Market nor the EU Customs Union suffer little or no hold up at the border when entering the EU. There is no reason for this to change after Brexit. Streamlined, computerised borders are the norm.
The WTO’s rule-based trading regime is comprehensive, tried and tested, and respected by the world’s trading nations. It is not some dreadful leap into the dark. Moreover, the UK already conducts over 55% of its exports trade with non-EU members, primarily under WTO rules. Even if allowance is made for those non-EU countries that have preferential trade deals with the EU (which may not immediately carry over on Brexit), about half of our exports go to the remaining non-EU countries. There is no doubt that UK exports to non-EU countries have grown quicker than to EU countries in recent years. The EU is a relatively sluggish and saturated market, despite the recent pick-up in growth (which could now be fading).
Trade can thrive under WTO rules, given favourable commercial circumstances, and there is little doubt that this would continue to be the case if the UK opted for the WTO option. Given the choice between a Chequers-style “deal” and the WTO option, the latter wins hands down.
Hall Of Fame
Good Morning! Burning the midnight oil here.
As someone once said, "I'm sorry that I couldn't make this message shorter - but I didn't have the time.
Regarding the border.
Brexiteers were very clear that free movement would stop.
So...how do you check to see who is entering the country without a hard border with border checks? Please tell. because if there is a way then we can use it at Dover, Hull etc as well.
You have quoted one of those experts who favours the WTO option.
I think the consensus between most experts is that the "just leave" option would be terrible for the country.
Please read on (if you have the time and inclination!)
Recent debate about no deal - which would mean the UK leaving the European Union (EU) next year without any withdrawal agreement - has focused on the fact that the UK would automatically fall back on World Trade Organization (WTO) trade rules. Those rules would apply automatically to UK trade with the EU and other countries with which the EU has free-trade deals.
So what would WTO rules mean in practice?
First, the basics. What is the WTO?
The WTO is the place where countries negotiate the rules of international trade - 164 countries are members and, if they don't have free trade agreements with each other, they trade under "WTO rules".
Which are?
Every WTO member has a list of tariffs (taxes on imports of goods) and quotas (limits on the number of goods) that they apply to other countries. These are known as their WTO schedules.
The average EU tariff is pretty low (about 2.6% for non-agricultural products) - but, in some sectors, tariffs can be quite high.
Under WTO rules, cars and car parts, for example, would be taxed at 10% every time they crossed the UK-EU border. And agricultural tariffs are significantly higher, rising to an average of over 35% for dairy products.
After Brexit, the UK could choose to lower tariffs or waive them altogether, in an attempt to stimulate free trade. That could mean some cheaper products coming into the country for consumers but it could also risk driving some UK producers out of business.
It's important to remember that, under the WTO's "most favoured nation" rules, the UK couldn't lower tariffs for the EU, or any specific country, alone. It would have to treat every other WTO member around the world in the same way.
WTO tariffs on dairy products average over 35%
What about other checks and costs?
These are what are known as "non-tariff barriers" and include things such as product standards and safety regulations. Once the UK is no longer part of the EU, there needs to be a system for mutually recognising each other's standards and regulations. Under a no deal Brexit this may not happen, at least not immediately.
You can argue that it might seem unreasonable if the EU was to go from imposing no checks on UK products at borders the day before Brexit, to insisting on all sorts of checks one day later, even though the UK hadn't changed any of its rules and regulations.
One source close to the WTO says the EU would be well within its rights to insist on checks in the absence of any mutual recognition agreement.
That is one of the differences between suddenly falling back on WTO rules in a no deal scenario and a more gradual transition to WTO rules in which many of these issues could be ironed out.
Non-tariff barriers would also have an even greater impact on the service sector, which makes up about 80% of the UK economy.
Doesn't the UK already trade with many countries on WTO rules?
Yes it does, as part of the EU.
Examples include the United States and China, Brazil and Australia. In fact, it's any country with which the EU (and therefore the UK) has not signed a free trade agreement. That's when WTO rules kick in.
But it's more complicated than that. Those big economies don't just rely on WTO rules - they also have a series of bilateral agreements with the EU on top of that.
The US, for example, has at least 20 agreements with the EU that help regulate specific areas of trade, covering everything from wine and bananas to insurance and energy-efficiency labelling.
In the event of a no deal Brexit, (and an abrupt change in relations), the UK could well have no such deals in place and would be in new territory. Both sides would make efforts to introduce some stopgap measures to keep their economies moving but a last-minute breakdown in negotiations would prove very difficult.
It's also worth remembering that 44% of all UK exports in 2017 went to the European Union on free trade terms, as part of the single market. That's down from 55% in 2006 but the EU is still by far the largest UK export market.
"Clearly this is not going to be a situation where all trade stops and there is collapse in terms of the economy as a whole," said the WTO's director general, Roberto Azevedo, when he was asked in a BBC interview last year about the potential effect of a hard Brexit on the UK and European economies.
"But it's not going to be a walk in the park. It's not like nothing will happen. There will be an impact. The tendency is that prices will go up of course, [because] you have to absorb the cost of that disruption."
Some people say it won't be a problem
Yes, some supporters of Brexit argue that no deal is the best way forward, because it would allow the UK to pursue an independent trade policy immediately - to go off and start signing its own trade deals.
That is not the government's view or the EU's view, nor is it the view of the vast majority of businesses.
A number of recent articles by supporters of Brexit have made reference to the WTO's Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), which came into force in 2017, arguing that it obliges the EU to treat the UK fairly.
But that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The TFA is aimed primarily at less developed countries and it seeks to encourage transparency and streamline bureaucratic procedures.
It does mean the EU cannot discriminate against the UK but it does not mean the UK can expect to be treated in the same way that it is now.
The UK would be treated like any other third country - and in the absence of any trade agreement, that means tariffs and border checks.
Will the UK have to re-join the WTO after Brexit?
No, it is already a member in its own right.
But it will have to agree a new list of tariff schedules once it is no longer part of the EU.
Like many other parts of the Brexit negotiations, that could be harder than it sounds.
The UK has already submitted documents to the WTO in Geneva, which say that it wants to make a few technical changes to its current commitments as an EU member but otherwise leave them unchanged.
But other countries will want to make sure they are no worse off than they are now after Brexit, while the UK is seeking the same schedules even though after leaving the EU it will represent a much smaller market.
One problem for both the UK and the EU surrounds proposals they have submitted for splitting up their current quotas after Brexit, for the import of sensitive agricultural products such as beef, lamb and sugar from elsewhere in the world. These proposals have already attracted complaints from other countries, including the United States.
And time is running rather short to complete what are always complex negotiations, in which every country will stick up for its own interests.
With a bit of goodwill, the UK hopes it will be able to resolve the debate about WTO schedules. But one of the dangers of a no deal Brexit is that there might not be much goodwill around, especially if it meant that the UK was refusing to pay the more than £39bn it has provisionally agreed it owes the EU as it leaves.
So this is a technical issue, but politics will also play a big role.
Footymad Forums offer you the chance to interact and discuss all things football with fellow fans from around the world, and share your views on footballing issues from the latest, breaking transfer rumours to the state of the game at international level and everything in between.
Whether your team is battling it out for the Premier League title or struggling for League survival, there's a forum for you!
Gooners, Mackems, Tractor Boys - you're all welcome, please just remember to respect the opinions of others.
Click here for a full list of the hundreds of forums available to you
The forums are free to join, although you must play fair and abide by the rules explained here, otherwise your ability to post may be temporarily or permanently revoked.
So what are you waiting for? Register now and join the debate!
(these forums are not actively moderated, so if you wish to report any comment made by another member please report it.)
Posting Permissions