Can be answered in one sentence ....Total speculation at the moment that we will end up in a WTO ONLY Brexit situation.
No it is a fact. Any trade done outside of a trade deal will be on WTO rules. A no deal Brexit means all our trade will be on WTO. A deal would mean trading on WTO everyone other than the EU. In either case the 5 deals that we have done would be exceptions.
You will have obviously missed my capitalised words above ..." WTO ONLY " The UK trades with 24 countries and territories under WTO rules alone. With 68 others it has, as part of the EU, free trade agreements, either fully or partly in place, which all enable trade on better terms. So to say that we have to solely trade under WTO is disingenuous.
In the case of no deal we will not have access to EU trade, or the EU trade deals, and all our trade will be on WTO. If we get a deal then we will just be on WTO with everyone else.
You have already said the 5 deals we have struck would be exceptions . Am I not making my point clear ?
That makes it a whole lot better
My point is , and you can't argue this isn't true ...that there will be other deals like the 5 , which will mean that whatever the outcome , we will NOT have to trade only on WTO terms.
Can you please confirm , what I've said above is correct .
Can be answered in one sentence ....Total speculation at the moment that we will end up in a WTO ONLY Brexit situation.
No it is a fact. Any trade done outside of a trade deal will be on WTO rules. A no deal Brexit means all our trade will be on WTO. A deal would mean trading on WTO everyone other than the EU. In either case the 5 deals that we have done would be exceptions.
You will have obviously missed my capitalised words above ..." WTO ONLY " The UK trades with 24 countries and territories under WTO rules alone. With 68 others it has, as part of the EU, free trade agreements, either fully or partly in place, which all enable trade on better terms. So to say that we have to solely trade under WTO is disingenuous.
In the case of no deal we will not have access to EU trade, or the EU trade deals, and all our trade will be on WTO. If we get a deal then we will just be on WTO with everyone else.
You have already said the 5 deals we have struck would be exceptions . Am I not making my point clear ?
That makes it a whole lot better
My point is , and you can't argue this isn't true ...that there will be other deals like the 5 , which will mean that whatever the outcome , we will NOT have to trade only on WTO terms.
Can you please confirm , what I've said above is correct .
Can be answered in one sentence ....Total speculation at the moment that we will end up in a WTO ONLY Brexit situation.
No it is a fact. Any trade done outside of a trade deal will be on WTO rules. A no deal Brexit means all our trade will be on WTO. A deal would mean trading on WTO everyone other than the EU. In either case the 5 deals that we have done would be exceptions.
You will have obviously missed my capitalised words above ..." WTO ONLY " The UK trades with 24 countries and territories under WTO rules alone. With 68 others it has, as part of the EU, free trade agreements, either fully or partly in place, which all enable trade on better terms. So to say that we have to solely trade under WTO is disingenuous.
In the case of no deal we will not have access to EU trade, or the EU trade deals, and all our trade will be on WTO. If we get a deal then we will just be on WTO with everyone else.
You have already said the 5 deals we have struck would be exceptions . Am I not making my point clear ?
That makes it a whole lot better
My point is , and you can't argue this isn't true ...that there will be other deals like the 5 , which will mean that whatever the outcome , we will NOT have to trade only on WTO terms.
Can you please confirm , what I've said above is correct .
This is likely to prove far more complicated than Lord Snooty makes out.
Nothing simple about UK regaining WTO status post-Brexit
A common assumption in the June 23 referendum debate is that after leaving the EU, the UK could “simply” operate as an ordinary WTO member. Eventually that’s true, but getting there would be far from simple. Some experts believe that the adjustments would be little more than technical, and that any negotiations would be straightforward. They could be right. It would depend on whether the WTO’s membership is determined to accommodate the UK’s wishes. But recent experience in the WTO suggests that is unlikely. A closer look at the details suggests some key issues could be politically contentious among the WTO’s members, currently 162 countries. On top of that, recent negotiating experience suggests that willingness to accommodate each other’s interests quickly is a scarce commodity in the WTO and even a final agreement cannot be guaranteed. If that is true, then post-Brexit, the UK can expect a long and rough ride
Saw this posted elsewhere, thought it relevant., feel free to pick it apart.
LONG INFURIATED POST ALERT:
Right, let's tackle this WTO thing, because it's **** me off.
1/ If we end up solely on WTO rules, then we need a hard border in Ireland. That risks peace, stability, and the Union. Plus we don't have any time to build the infrastructure required. Like, nowhere NEAR enough time. And there aren't any "alternative arrangements", I promise. They don't exist. There isn't a single border in the world that has any. And that means a hard border.
2/ If we rely on WTO rules for trade, then we need to apply tariffs to imports. And expect that other countries will apply tariffs to our exports. That makes things more expensive for us to buy, and makes our businesses less able to compete. Not really sure how this is a win.
3/ If we decide we're not going to apply tariffs to imports at all, then we lose all leverage for negotiating future trade deals. What on earth would we offer them?? We've already given them free access to our market.
4/ If we decide we're not going to apply tariffs to imports at all, then we destroy our own producers - why would you carry on trying to run a farm produce business when the market is flooded with much cheaper products from abroad?
5/ If we decide to only reduce tariffs on products from the EU, then the Most Favoured Nation clause (WTO rules) kicks in - this says that you can't offer more favourable terms to one bloc, and not everyone else. So - no tariffs from the EU, means no tariffs from anyone. See points 3 and 4.
6/ If you were looking forward to getting your bendy bananas back, then tough ****; this rule didn't come from the EU (no matter what Boris told you), it came from the WTO - specifically, the Codex Alimentarius. So, no change there. Except now bananas are extortionately expensive, because, well, tariffs.
7/ If you're relying on the idea that there's an obscure WTO rule that says we can just carry on trading with the EU on the same terms we have now for 10 years, then tough **** again - this isn't correct. The "rule" is Article XXIV of the GATT, and is specifically an allowance for deviating from the MFN (see 5) because you and another bloc are working towards implementing your bilateral trade deal. It requires an end point - a fully thrashed out trade agreement. It is specifically NOT a clause that comes into play when you decide to drop out of a trading arrangement.
8/ If one of the benefits of "going WTO" is that we can make our own rules, then I can understand that. We could decide, unilaterally, that it's too expensive for us to produce electronics with an earthing wire, so we're not going to insist on that anymore. Cool. But then we can't sell our products to our closest trading neighbours. We want to sell stuff to the EU, we need to follow their rules. Except now we don't get a say in what they are.
9/ Having a "world trade deal" sounds quite attractive - quite romantic. The idea of Britain going out on her own, bravely forging links with faraway lands - it's quite appealing. Except trade doesn't work like that. There's a gravity towards your closest neighbours - proximity is important. I'm more likely to sell something to France than I am to Australia - I can get it there quicker, for example, and for a much lower cost. There is no nation on earth - none - that have prioritised trading with distant countries instead of those geographically closest. We're about to be the first - which will involve a pretty brutal lesson in the realities of logistics.
10/ If we go WTO, then we need to check goods coming into our internal market - including those from the EU. We don't have the infrastructure to do this. Nor do we have the staff. Nor the time. Plus - and this is deeply ironic - once we leave the EU, the pool of people from which we can recruit to do this essential work becomes much, much smaller. Do we have enough vets to perform the necessary checks on livestock coming into the country, for example? No. Where do we normally recruit them from? The EU. Ah, ****.
11/ A No Deal exit was never on the cards during the campaign. It is simply all that is left, once logic and reality strip away all the lies that we were told about Brexit. No, German car manufacturers haven't been knocking on Merkel's door demanding a trade deal with the UK. No, the EU doesn't need us more than we need them. No, we don't hold all the cards. None of that was true. It was never going to be true. But rather than facing up to reality, the rhetoric has just become more and more extreme. If you're dealt a bad hand in a game of poker - if the river turns against you - you don't HAVE to go all in. There are other options. You don't need to claim that was what you intended to do all along.
All of this - all of the above. That's what Donald Tusk was talking about. People who either ignored the above, or didn't even bother to find out about it - but sold us Brexit anyway. The people who - even now - print banners that say "LET'S GO WTO!" as if it's the easiest thing in the world, and without consequence.
Forty-nine days to go.
Just forty-nine.
Sigh.
Point 1 on the list of nonsense :
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has said that there is nothing in its rules that would force either the EU or UK to erect a hard Irish border after Brexit.
The Geneva-based trade body where countries negotiate the rules of international trade would only intervene in a dispute over trade if one of its 164 member countries made a complaint.
Brexit vote has cost UK economy £40bn per year; much more than the divorce bill
If you think Brexit hasn’t truly hit the UK economy, think again. The Bank of England estimates that uncertainty stemming directly from the Brexit referendum has cost the British economy £40bn ($51.5bn) per year, according to Gertjan Vlieghe, who is part of the central bank’s key monetary policy committee. In a speech on Thursday, Vlieghe outlined that the Bank of England calculated the UK economy took a 2% hit since the Brexit vote compared to where it otherwise would have been. “That amounts to around £40bn per year, or £800m per week of lost income for the country as a whole,” he said.
I would suggest that any Brexit uncertainty can be fully laid at the door of this incompetent shambles of a government as opposed to Brexit itself.
I'm right in the middle on this issue. There is a perfect storm of ineffective government, equally ineffective opposition, genuine problems that will be caused by Brexit, and a whole host of irrelevant stuff that people will claim was caused by Brexit, when it wasn't.
We need to move past rerunning the referendum. The people were given a vote, and the Government promised to abide by that vote. We need to leave in as orderly a fashion as possible.
Will there be problems? Of course there will. But we will survive.
I appreciate what you have said.
I don't think it is quite that simple.
It has been almost 3 years since the referendum.
We have the opportunity to change our minds on Governments every 5 years.
We had an election in 2015, and elected a Government for 5 years.
Yet the Government chose to have another election in 2017.
They didnt consult the electorate, but this wasn't considered to be undemocratic.
There has been talk of another General Election this year, again without consulting the electorate,this will not be considered to be undemocratic.
It doesn't appear possible to deliver the Brexit that was promised.
Are politicians bound to deliver an act of economic self harm, because a small majority voted in favour of it, and may have been unaware of the likely damage, at the time they voted?
Should the unity of the UK be considered as more important?
Is an opportunity for people to demonstrate that they haven't changed their minds really undemocratic?
Many Brexiteers on the one hand suggest that a second referendum would be undemocratic, whilst claiming they would win a second one by a wider margin. If this is the case, then why be afraid of having one.
I don't go along with the fact that those who voted to leave, were thick, or didn't know what they were doing, but don't see a problem with them confirming that they still feel the same way, when all the facts are known. Isnt that just being more democratic?
If you were a leave voter, I am not sure you could currently say that you were happy you had done the right thing, when we are still unaware of what the outcome will be.
Politicians are elected to make decisions on our behalf.
The interpretation of the referendum result, varies widely amongst politicians.
If we were compiling a list of manifesto pledges that weren't implemented by Governments, this would be a tremendously long post.
The Governments own research shows that this is a bad idea, shouldn't they act in the countrys best interests.
I don't think that a referendum is currently likely, although that may change, and could resolve the situation.
I am prepared to accept the referendum result, even though it is hard to argue that continued EU membership is not our best option.
Saw this posted elsewhere, thought it relevant., feel free to pick it apart.
LONG INFURIATED POST ALERT:
Right, let's tackle this WTO thing, because it's **** me off.
1/ If we end up solely on WTO rules, then we need a hard border in Ireland. That risks peace, stability, and the Union. Plus we don't have any time to build the infrastructure required. Like, nowhere NEAR enough time. And there aren't any "alternative arrangements", I promise. They don't exist. There isn't a single border in the world that has any. And that means a hard border.
2/ If we rely on WTO rules for trade, then we need to apply tariffs to imports. And expect that other countries will apply tariffs to our exports. That makes things more expensive for us to buy, and makes our businesses less able to compete. Not really sure how this is a win.
3/ If we decide we're not going to apply tariffs to imports at all, then we lose all leverage for negotiating future trade deals. What on earth would we offer them?? We've already given them free access to our market.
4/ If we decide we're not going to apply tariffs to imports at all, then we destroy our own producers - why would you carry on trying to run a farm produce business when the market is flooded with much cheaper products from abroad?
5/ If we decide to only reduce tariffs on products from the EU, then the Most Favoured Nation clause (WTO rules) kicks in - this says that you can't offer more favourable terms to one bloc, and not everyone else. So - no tariffs from the EU, means no tariffs from anyone. See points 3 and 4.
6/ If you were looking forward to getting your bendy bananas back, then tough ****; this rule didn't come from the EU (no matter what Boris told you), it came from the WTO - specifically, the Codex Alimentarius. So, no change there. Except now bananas are extortionately expensive, because, well, tariffs.
7/ If you're relying on the idea that there's an obscure WTO rule that says we can just carry on trading with the EU on the same terms we have now for 10 years, then tough **** again - this isn't correct. The "rule" is Article XXIV of the GATT, and is specifically an allowance for deviating from the MFN (see 5) because you and another bloc are working towards implementing your bilateral trade deal. It requires an end point - a fully thrashed out trade agreement. It is specifically NOT a clause that comes into play when you decide to drop out of a trading arrangement.
8/ If one of the benefits of "going WTO" is that we can make our own rules, then I can understand that. We could decide, unilaterally, that it's too expensive for us to produce electronics with an earthing wire, so we're not going to insist on that anymore. Cool. But then we can't sell our products to our closest trading neighbours. We want to sell stuff to the EU, we need to follow their rules. Except now we don't get a say in what they are.
9/ Having a "world trade deal" sounds quite attractive - quite romantic. The idea of Britain going out on her own, bravely forging links with faraway lands - it's quite appealing. Except trade doesn't work like that. There's a gravity towards your closest neighbours - proximity is important. I'm more likely to sell something to France than I am to Australia - I can get it there quicker, for example, and for a much lower cost. There is no nation on earth - none - that have prioritised trading with distant countries instead of those geographically closest. We're about to be the first - which will involve a pretty brutal lesson in the realities of logistics.
10/ If we go WTO, then we need to check goods coming into our internal market - including those from the EU. We don't have the infrastructure to do this. Nor do we have the staff. Nor the time. Plus - and this is deeply ironic - once we leave the EU, the pool of people from which we can recruit to do this essential work becomes much, much smaller. Do we have enough vets to perform the necessary checks on livestock coming into the country, for example? No. Where do we normally recruit them from? The EU. Ah, ****.
11/ A No Deal exit was never on the cards during the campaign. It is simply all that is left, once logic and reality strip away all the lies that we were told about Brexit. No, German car manufacturers haven't been knocking on Merkel's door demanding a trade deal with the UK. No, the EU doesn't need us more than we need them. No, we don't hold all the cards. None of that was true. It was never going to be true. But rather than facing up to reality, the rhetoric has just become more and more extreme. If you're dealt a bad hand in a game of poker - if the river turns against you - you don't HAVE to go all in. There are other options. You don't need to claim that was what you intended to do all along.
All of this - all of the above. That's what Donald Tusk was talking about. People who either ignored the above, or didn't even bother to find out about it - but sold us Brexit anyway. The people who - even now - print banners that say "LET'S GO WTO!" as if it's the easiest thing in the world, and without consequence.
Forty-nine days to go.
Just forty-nine.
Sigh.
Point 1 on the list of nonsense :
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has said that there is nothing in its rules that would force either the EU or UK to erect a hard Irish border after Brexit.
The Geneva-based trade body where countries negotiate the rules of international trade would only intervene in a dispute over trade if one of its 164 member countries made a complaint.
So taking back control of our borders means not having them? Excellent for immigration controls?
Saw this posted elsewhere, thought it relevant., feel free to pick it apart.
LONG INFURIATED POST ALERT:
Right, let's tackle this WTO thing, because it's **** me off.
1/ If we end up solely on WTO rules, then we need a hard border in Ireland. That risks peace, stability, and the Union. Plus we don't have any time to build the infrastructure required. Like, nowhere NEAR enough time. And there aren't any "alternative arrangements", I promise. They don't exist. There isn't a single border in the world that has any. And that means a hard border.
2/ If we rely on WTO rules for trade, then we need to apply tariffs to imports. And expect that other countries will apply tariffs to our exports. That makes things more expensive for us to buy, and makes our businesses less able to compete. Not really sure how this is a win.
3/ If we decide we're not going to apply tariffs to imports at all, then we lose all leverage for negotiating future trade deals. What on earth would we offer them?? We've already given them free access to our market.
4/ If we decide we're not going to apply tariffs to imports at all, then we destroy our own producers - why would you carry on trying to run a farm produce business when the market is flooded with much cheaper products from abroad?
5/ If we decide to only reduce tariffs on products from the EU, then the Most Favoured Nation clause (WTO rules) kicks in - this says that you can't offer more favourable terms to one bloc, and not everyone else. So - no tariffs from the EU, means no tariffs from anyone. See points 3 and 4.
6/ If you were looking forward to getting your bendy bananas back, then tough ****; this rule didn't come from the EU (no matter what Boris told you), it came from the WTO - specifically, the Codex Alimentarius. So, no change there. Except now bananas are extortionately expensive, because, well, tariffs.
7/ If you're relying on the idea that there's an obscure WTO rule that says we can just carry on trading with the EU on the same terms we have now for 10 years, then tough **** again - this isn't correct. The "rule" is Article XXIV of the GATT, and is specifically an allowance for deviating from the MFN (see 5) because you and another bloc are working towards implementing your bilateral trade deal. It requires an end point - a fully thrashed out trade agreement. It is specifically NOT a clause that comes into play when you decide to drop out of a trading arrangement.
8/ If one of the benefits of "going WTO" is that we can make our own rules, then I can understand that. We could decide, unilaterally, that it's too expensive for us to produce electronics with an earthing wire, so we're not going to insist on that anymore. Cool. But then we can't sell our products to our closest trading neighbours. We want to sell stuff to the EU, we need to follow their rules. Except now we don't get a say in what they are.
9/ Having a "world trade deal" sounds quite attractive - quite romantic. The idea of Britain going out on her own, bravely forging links with faraway lands - it's quite appealing. Except trade doesn't work like that. There's a gravity towards your closest neighbours - proximity is important. I'm more likely to sell something to France than I am to Australia - I can get it there quicker, for example, and for a much lower cost. There is no nation on earth - none - that have prioritised trading with distant countries instead of those geographically closest. We're about to be the first - which will involve a pretty brutal lesson in the realities of logistics.
10/ If we go WTO, then we need to check goods coming into our internal market - including those from the EU. We don't have the infrastructure to do this. Nor do we have the staff. Nor the time. Plus - and this is deeply ironic - once we leave the EU, the pool of people from which we can recruit to do this essential work becomes much, much smaller. Do we have enough vets to perform the necessary checks on livestock coming into the country, for example? No. Where do we normally recruit them from? The EU. Ah, ****.
11/ A No Deal exit was never on the cards during the campaign. It is simply all that is left, once logic and reality strip away all the lies that we were told about Brexit. No, German car manufacturers haven't been knocking on Merkel's door demanding a trade deal with the UK. No, the EU doesn't need us more than we need them. No, we don't hold all the cards. None of that was true. It was never going to be true. But rather than facing up to reality, the rhetoric has just become more and more extreme. If you're dealt a bad hand in a game of poker - if the river turns against you - you don't HAVE to go all in. There are other options. You don't need to claim that was what you intended to do all along.
All of this - all of the above. That's what Donald Tusk was talking about. People who either ignored the above, or didn't even bother to find out about it - but sold us Brexit anyway. The people who - even now - print banners that say "LET'S GO WTO!" as if it's the easiest thing in the world, and without consequence.
Forty-nine days to go.
Just forty-nine.
Sigh.
Point 1 on the list of nonsense :
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has said that there is nothing in its rules that would force either the EU or UK to erect a hard Irish border after Brexit.
The Geneva-based trade body where countries negotiate the rules of international trade would only intervene in a dispute over trade if one of its 164 member countries made a complaint.
So taking back control of our borders means not having them? Excellent for immigration controls?
Don't be foolish . It would fall either to the UK or EU - not the WTO - to set up border checks in order to protect the integrity of their internal markets from illegal activity and divergent trade rules.
Brexit vote has cost UK economy £40bn per year; much more than the divorce bill
If you think Brexit hasn’t truly hit the UK economy, think again. The Bank of England estimates that uncertainty stemming directly from the Brexit referendum has cost the British economy £40bn ($51.5bn) per year, according to Gertjan Vlieghe, who is part of the central bank’s key monetary policy committee. In a speech on Thursday, Vlieghe outlined that the Bank of England calculated the UK economy took a 2% hit since the Brexit vote compared to where it otherwise would have been. “That amounts to around £40bn per year, or £800m per week of lost income for the country as a whole,” he said.
I would suggest that any Brexit uncertainty can be fully laid at the door of this incompetent shambles of a government as opposed to Brexit itself.
I'm right in the middle on this issue. There is a perfect storm of ineffective government, equally ineffective opposition, genuine problems that will be caused by Brexit, and a whole host of irrelevant stuff that people will claim was caused by Brexit, when it wasn't.
We need to move past rerunning the referendum. The people were given a vote, and the Government promised to abide by that vote. We need to leave in as orderly a fashion as possible.
Will there be problems? Of course there will. But we will survive.
I appreciate what you have said.
I don't think it is quite that simple.
It has been almost 3 years since the referendum.
We have the opportunity to change our minds on Governments every 5 years.
We had an election in 2015, and elected a Government for 5 years.
Yet the Government chose to have another election in 2017.
They didnt consult the electorate, but this wasn't considered to be undemocratic.
There has been talk of another General Election this year, again without consulting the electorate,this will not be considered to be undemocratic.
It doesn't appear possible to deliver the Brexit that was promised.
Are politicians bound to deliver an act of economic self harm, because a small majority voted in favour of it, and may have been unaware of the likely damage, at the time they voted?
Should the unity of the UK be considered as more important?
Is an opportunity for people to demonstrate that they haven't changed their minds really undemocratic?
Many Brexiteers on the one hand suggest that a second referendum would be undemocratic, whilst claiming they would win a second one by a wider margin. If this is the case, then why be afraid of having one.
I don't go along with the fact that those who voted to leave, were thick, or didn't know what they were doing, but don't see a problem with them confirming that they still feel the same way, when all the facts are known. Isnt that just being more democratic?
If you were a leave voter, I am not sure you could currently say that you were happy you had done the right thing, when we are still unaware of what the outcome will be.
Politicians are elected to make decisions on our behalf.
The interpretation of the referendum result, varies widely amongst politicians.
If we were compiling a list of manifesto pledges that weren't implemented by Governments, this would be a tremendously long post.
The Governments own research shows that this is a bad idea, shouldn't they act in the countrys best interests.
I don't think that a referendum is currently likely, although that may change, and could resolve the situation.
I am prepared to accept the referendum result, even though it is hard to argue that continued EU membership is not our best option.
There doesn't seem to be a solution in sight.
You really don't get it do you ? ...You completely underplay the social effects of having another referendum . Rather than create unity , it really would be armageddon.
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has said that there is nothing in its rules that would force either the EU or UK to erect a hard Irish border after Brexit.
The Geneva-based trade body where countries negotiate the rules of international trade would only intervene in a dispute over trade if one of its 164 member countries made a complaint.
BELFAST (Reuters) - World Trade Organization (WTO) rules are clear that checks would be required between EU-member Ireland and the British province of Northern Ireland if Britain crashed out of the bloc without an exit deal, the minister for the region said on Monday. “The fact is that the WTO is very clear that if there are two different customs territories, checks have to be able to be carried out on a contemporaneous basis on consignments passing between the two territories,” Karen Bradley told reporters. “How this is done would be something we could negotiate. We will do, as the UK government, everything we can do to avoid there being a hard border on the island of Ireland. We do not want to see physical infrastructure but WTO rules are clear.”
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has said that there is nothing in its rules that would force either the EU or UK to erect a hard Irish border after Brexit.
The Geneva-based trade body where countries negotiate the rules of international trade would only intervene in a dispute over trade if one of its 164 member countries made a complaint.
So taking back control of our borders means not having them? Excellent for immigration controls?
Don't be foolish . It would fall either to the UK or EU - not the WTO - to set up border checks in order to protect the integrity of their internal markets from illegal activity and divergent trade rules.
Point one refers to the fact that operating WTO rules mean that there would have to be a border, not that the WTO would build one. The WTO is a trade organisation, hence the name.
Brexit vote has cost UK economy £40bn per year; much more than the divorce bill
If you think Brexit hasn’t truly hit the UK economy, think again. The Bank of England estimates that uncertainty stemming directly from the Brexit referendum has cost the British economy £40bn ($51.5bn) per year, according to Gertjan Vlieghe, who is part of the central bank’s key monetary policy committee. In a speech on Thursday, Vlieghe outlined that the Bank of England calculated the UK economy took a 2% hit since the Brexit vote compared to where it otherwise would have been. “That amounts to around £40bn per year, or £800m per week of lost income for the country as a whole,” he said.
I would suggest that any Brexit uncertainty can be fully laid at the door of this incompetent shambles of a government as opposed to Brexit itself.
I'm right in the middle on this issue. There is a perfect storm of ineffective government, equally ineffective opposition, genuine problems that will be caused by Brexit, and a whole host of irrelevant stuff that people will claim was caused by Brexit, when it wasn't.
We need to move past rerunning the referendum. The people were given a vote, and the Government promised to abide by that vote. We need to leave in as orderly a fashion as possible.
Will there be problems? Of course there will. But we will survive.
I appreciate what you have said.
I don't think it is quite that simple.
It has been almost 3 years since the referendum.
We have the opportunity to change our minds on Governments every 5 years.
We had an election in 2015, and elected a Government for 5 years.
Yet the Government chose to have another election in 2017.
They didnt consult the electorate, but this wasn't considered to be undemocratic.
There has been talk of another General Election this year, again without consulting the electorate,this will not be considered to be undemocratic.
It doesn't appear possible to deliver the Brexit that was promised.
Are politicians bound to deliver an act of economic self harm, because a small majority voted in favour of it, and may have been unaware of the likely damage, at the time they voted?
Should the unity of the UK be considered as more important?
Is an opportunity for people to demonstrate that they haven't changed their minds really undemocratic?
Many Brexiteers on the one hand suggest that a second referendum would be undemocratic, whilst claiming they would win a second one by a wider margin. If this is the case, then why be afraid of having one.
I don't go along with the fact that those who voted to leave, were thick, or didn't know what they were doing, but don't see a problem with them confirming that they still feel the same way, when all the facts are known. Isnt that just being more democratic?
If you were a leave voter, I am not sure you could currently say that you were happy you had done the right thing, when we are still unaware of what the outcome will be.
Politicians are elected to make decisions on our behalf.
The interpretation of the referendum result, varies widely amongst politicians.
If we were compiling a list of manifesto pledges that weren't implemented by Governments, this would be a tremendously long post.
The Governments own research shows that this is a bad idea, shouldn't they act in the countrys best interests.
I don't think that a referendum is currently likely, although that may change, and could resolve the situation.
I am prepared to accept the referendum result, even though it is hard to argue that continued EU membership is not our best option.
There doesn't seem to be a solution in sight.
You really don't get it do you ? ...You completely underplay the social effects of having another referendum . Rather than create unity , it really would be armageddon.
I don't think that going ahead with it is likely to create any unity.
I also think that Armageddon is more likely to happen if there was a no deal Brexit, rather than a referendum.
You really don't get it do you ? ...You completely underplay the social effects of having another referendum . Rather than create unity , it really would be armageddon.
Also the comment that I made about unity was referring to the likelihood of Northern Ireland and Scotland remaining in The Union.
"Also the comment that I made about unity was referring to the likelihood of Northern Ireland and Scotland remaining in The Union"
Fair enough, that wasn't clear.
They both voted in favour of remaining. The support for a United Ireland is said to be increasing, and the imposition of a hard border would surely increase it further. One of the threats in the last Scottish Independence referendum, was that they would have to leave the EU, as a result of gaining Independence. I don't know how popular independence is there at the moment, but if their predictions of 80,000 job losses in the event of a no deal Brexit came true, then it is surely going to increase dramatically in popularity.
You really don't get it do you ? ...You completely underplay the social effects of having another referendum . Rather than create unity , it really would be armageddon.
I don't think you can underestimate the divisions that currently exist. What will happen to heal the rift. A no deal Brexit is unlikely to. Neither will negotiating a trade deal with the EU for the next 10 years. People are fed up with Brexit. Yet we aren't even close to a solution.
Comments
Nothing simple about UK regaining WTO status post-Brexit
A common assumption in the June 23 referendum debate is that after leaving the EU, the UK could “simply” operate as an ordinary WTO member. Eventually that’s true, but getting there would be far from simple.
Some experts believe that the adjustments would be little more than technical, and that any negotiations would be straightforward. They could be right. It would depend on whether the WTO’s membership is determined to accommodate the UK’s wishes.
But recent experience in the WTO suggests that is unlikely. A closer look at the details suggests some key issues could be politically contentious among the WTO’s members, currently 162 countries.
On top of that, recent negotiating experience suggests that willingness to accommodate each other’s interests quickly is a scarce commodity in the WTO and even a final agreement cannot be guaranteed.
If that is true, then post-Brexit, the UK can expect a long and rough ride
https://www.ictsd.org/opinion/nothing-simple-about-uk-regaining-wto-status-post-brexit
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has said that there is nothing in its rules that would force either the EU or UK to erect a hard Irish border after Brexit.
The Geneva-based trade body where countries negotiate the rules of international trade would only intervene in a dispute over trade if one of its 164 member countries made a complaint.
Another remoaner whinging.
MOTP
I don't think it is quite that simple.
It has been almost 3 years since the referendum.
We have the opportunity to change our minds on Governments every 5 years.
We had an election in 2015, and elected a Government for 5 years.
Yet the Government chose to have another election in 2017.
They didnt consult the electorate, but this wasn't considered to be undemocratic.
There has been talk of another General Election this year, again without consulting the electorate,this will not be considered to be undemocratic.
It doesn't appear possible to deliver the Brexit that was promised.
Are politicians bound to deliver an act of economic self harm, because a small majority voted in favour of it, and may have been unaware of the likely damage, at the time they voted?
Should the unity of the UK be considered as more important?
Is an opportunity for people to demonstrate that they haven't changed their minds really undemocratic?
Many Brexiteers on the one hand suggest that a second referendum would be undemocratic, whilst claiming they would win a second one by a wider margin. If this is the case, then why be afraid of having one.
I don't go along with the fact that those who voted to leave, were thick, or didn't know what they were doing, but don't see a problem with them confirming that they still feel the same way, when all the facts are known. Isnt that just being more democratic?
If you were a leave voter, I am not sure you could currently say that you were happy you had done the right thing, when we are still unaware of what the outcome will be.
Politicians are elected to make decisions on our behalf.
The interpretation of the referendum result, varies widely amongst politicians.
If we were compiling a list of manifesto pledges that weren't implemented by Governments, this would be a tremendously long post.
The Governments own research shows that this is a bad idea, shouldn't they act in the countrys best interests.
I don't think that a referendum is currently likely, although that may change, and could resolve the situation.
I am prepared to accept the referendum result, even though it is hard to argue that continued EU membership is not our best option.
There doesn't seem to be a solution in sight.
Excellent for immigration controls?
Point 1 on the list of nonsense :
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has said that there is nothing in its rules that would force either the EU or UK to erect a hard Irish border after Brexit.
The Geneva-based trade body where countries negotiate the rules of international trade would only intervene in a dispute over trade if one of its 164 member countries made a complaint.
BELFAST (Reuters) - World Trade Organization (WTO) rules are clear that checks would be required between EU-member Ireland and the British province of Northern Ireland if Britain crashed out of the bloc without an exit deal, the minister for the region said on Monday.
“The fact is that the WTO is very clear that if there are two different customs territories, checks have to be able to be carried out on a contemporaneous basis on consignments passing between the two territories,” Karen Bradley told reporters.
“How this is done would be something we could negotiate. We will do, as the UK government, everything we can do to avoid there being a hard border on the island of Ireland. We do not want to see physical infrastructure but WTO rules are clear.”
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-nireland-border/wto-rules-clear-on-border-checks-in-no-deal-brexit-uk-northern-ireland-minister-idUKKCN1NO18I
Point 1 on the list of nonsense :
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has said that there is nothing in its rules that would force either the EU or UK to erect a hard Irish border after Brexit.
The Geneva-based trade body where countries negotiate the rules of international trade would only intervene in a dispute over trade if one of its 164 member countries made a complaint.
So taking back control of our borders means not having them?
Excellent for immigration controls?
Don't be foolish . It would fall either to the UK or EU - not the WTO - to set up border checks in order to protect the integrity of their internal markets from illegal activity and divergent trade rules.
Point one refers to the fact that operating WTO rules mean that there would have to be a border, not that the WTO would build one.
The WTO is a trade organisation, hence the name.
I also think that Armageddon is more likely to happen if there was a no deal Brexit, rather than a referendum.
.
You really don't get it do you ? ...You completely underplay the social effects of having another referendum . Rather than create unity , it really would be armageddon.
Also the comment that I made about unity was referring to the likelihood of Northern Ireland and Scotland remaining in The Union.
"Also the comment that I made about unity was referring to the likelihood of Northern Ireland and Scotland remaining in The Union"
Fair enough, that wasn't clear.
The support for a United Ireland is said to be increasing, and the imposition of a hard border would surely increase it further.
One of the threats in the last Scottish Independence referendum, was that they would have to leave the EU, as a result of gaining Independence.
I don't know how popular independence is there at the moment, but if their predictions of 80,000 job losses in the event of a no deal Brexit came true, then it is surely going to increase dramatically in popularity.
You really don't get it do you ? ...You completely underplay the social effects of having another referendum . Rather than create unity , it really would be armageddon.
I don't think you can underestimate the divisions that currently exist.
What will happen to heal the rift.
A no deal Brexit is unlikely to.
Neither will negotiating a trade deal with the EU for the next 10 years.
People are fed up with Brexit.
Yet we aren't even close to a solution.