The benefits of Brexit - the future of the United Kingdom

[smf]

you'd find out that he was head researcher for Thatcher who in the later part of her political life held famous speeches against the further integration concept of the then starting to form EU.

How does that relate to your point? Two rich white people who have a poor track record of their dealing with foreigners were in government in the 80's.

While the UK has just changed government - same party though - to scare us with hard brexit a little more (you've got the roles reversed...).

Are you saying that you think Boris was put in power to scare us against brexit? Project Fear was never Project Fear, all the fear was coming from the leave campaign.

I think you'd be shocked at how leave voters would have reacted if they were living in 1920's germany when that "nice man hitler" was going to sort out the country.

As a matter of fact the EU does have incentive to negotiate a reasonable trade deal with the UK as Airbus has a lot of manufacturing in the UK and Rolls Royce, who supply the jet engines to Airbus, are very important to the EU economy and military. That is at least until they move out of the UK,

Right, for anything movable there is no real incentive to keep it within the UK after brexit. A lot of jobs only came to the UK in the first place because we were in the EU.

I'm reminded of the Star Wars quote "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers". The more the UK tries to take back control, the more control we will lose.

 

[notimp]

Just an interesting tidbit. (Where Michael Portillos motivation comes from.)

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

If the EU does NOT treat the UK the way it does due to ideological reasons or to prevent other member states from leaving, then why can't the UK go back to how things once were, i.e. low or no tariffs but no political unity?

The US withdrew from TPP but imagine if it hadn't and years from now the US would demand free movement of people between member states, e.g. between Japan, Peru and Vietnam. None of these countries would except this level of limitation on their sovereignty. But if they don't listen, they have to be economically punished. Sounds a bit like blackmail, doesn't it?

Now I'm aware the people in the UK kept voting for parties who engaged in an ever tighter political union. So in the end, it's their own fault. But let's be honest, people are gonna be sheeple. Very easy to manipulate... There are many yellow vest idiots who actually voted for Macron and keep complaining now.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

If the EU does NOT treat the UK the way it does due to ideological reasons or to prevent other member states from leaving, then why can't the UK go back to how things once were, i.e. low or no tariffs but no political unity?

First of all, where are you getting from that the tariffs would be unreasonably high? Going back to how things were before 1972 is exactly what they're doing. Demanding import taxes from foreign markets is not an ideological position it's literally what every country is doing.

The US withdrew from TPP but imagine if it hadn't and years from now the US would demand free movement of people between member states, e.g. between Japan, Peru and Vietnam. None of these countries would except this level of limitation on their sovereignty. But if they don't listen, they have to be economically punished. Sounds a bit like blackmail, doesn't it?

Are you drunk? The UK is withdrawing their membership of the EU, not getting the benefits of being a member anymore isn't blackmail, the British people chose this.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

I was under the assumption that being part of the pre-EU economic union had benefits compared to non-member states. Weren't there lower tariffs?

 

[kumikochan]

If the EU does NOT treat the UK the way it does due to ideological reasons or to prevent other member states from leaving, then why can't the UK go back to how things once were, i.e. low or no tariffs but no political unity?

The US withdrew from TPP but imagine if it hadn't and years from now the US would demand free movement of people between member states, e.g. between Japan, Peru and Vietnam. None of these countries would except this level of limitation on their sovereignty. But if they don't listen, they have to be economically punished. Sounds a bit like blackmail, doesn't it?

Now I'm aware the people in the UK kept voting for parties who engaged in an ever tighter political union. So in the end, it's their own fault. But let's be honest, people are gonna be sheeple. Very easy to manipulate... There are many yellow vest idiots who actually voted for Macron and keep complaining now.

People voting Macron is because of this jackass (see youtube vid) complaining Russia is intervening with American elections but here he's doing exactly the same thing because it's only a good thing when the US does it placing them always above everyone else but when somebody else does it well all hell breaks loose. Secondly, Macron didn't have the majority vote but came to power because all the other parties backed him and he came to power because he formed a coalition with ALL parties against Le Penn. Le Penn actually had the majority vote but didn't get enough votes to become President because as a member of a single party she didn't have 50 percent wich you need atleast because all the other parties backed Macron instead. So nope, in that regard not a lot of people voted Macron. Also the EU can't treat the UK the way you're claiming they should because the EU treaty clearly states free travel of people, food and more within member states wich all the other shengen countries agreed to while the UK is saying no to that so ofcourse they can't be treated the same way because they're acting like small entitled brats screaming while laying on the floor in a shop '' MOMMIE I WANT THAAAAAAAAAT AND I WON'T STOP TILL YOU GIVE ME THAAAAAT ''. I remember around 5 years ago the UK was complaining that the European parlement was in Brussels despite the union being founded on the BELUX wich was Belgium, Luxembourg and were threatening the Union already back then that they wanted to leave since they had the audacity to say that the European parlement should be in London because the UK well being the UK. When it came to Union countries, the UK always acted like an entitled brat and them leaving now is just that entitled childish attitude of not getting what it wants.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Can there be trade without or low tariffs between EU and USA or does USA first have to join the EU?

 

[kumikochan]

Can there be trade without or low tariffs between EU and USA or does USA first have to join the EU?

A simple google search does a lot.
https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/united-states/

 

[fatherjack]

.....too much reading......all i know is there was trade before there was even money. little thing like brexit isnt gonna see it off

 

[supersonicwaffle]

I was under the assumption that being part of the pre-EU economic union had benefits compared to non-member states. Weren't there lower tariffs?

Yes but that union has developed into the EU as we know it of which the UK has been a founding member in 1992. One of the things that was clear from the start would be the concept of an EU citizenship that would allow you to live wherever you want within the union. The European Economic Community does not exist anymore.

 

[kumikochan]

.....too much reading......all i know is there was trade before there was even money. little thing like brexit isnt gonna see it off

How is that so ? Almost all medication comes from the union and it is already said the UK will have a big shortage medicine wise if there's a no deal brexit since new deals have to be made before trade can happen again. Almost everything imported goes through the Union so new deals will have to be made before trade can happen so shortage on almost everything, The gas pipe goes through the Union so new deals have to be made before gas can be supplied, Gasoline, oil and everything goes through Union territory so shortage of that in case of a no deal brexit, big companies and even tons of British companies are setting up headquarters Europe so tons of jobs will be lost since they aren't UK based anymore plus a shortage again since they fall under Union legislation and new deals have to be made again before trade can happen. All of that is also the primary reason the UK is acting like America's bitch at the moment attacking countries like Iran and blocking vessels from Iran since they have to rely on trade deals mostly with the US and that's why they're the only ones in the entire world acting that way towards countries the US has problems with while the Union does not.

 

[notimp]

Can there be trade without or low tariffs between EU and USA or does USA first have to join the EU?

Yes. International trade agreements (usually bilateral), or agreements based on trade union (f.e. WTO) rulesets. States prefer bilateral agreements, because they can then be more 'tailored'.

(But also - within WTO rules, and within bilateral agrements, the 'stronger' fraction usually somewhat can 'impose' their ruleset. To a point of course, but it is a thing.)

This doesnt mean "no tariffs" ever, because as seen recently the US (or any other state) can one-sidedly announce, that they will put tariffs on certain goods, basically whenever (its a political tool - usually to signal 'we need to talk again'). But it means 'managed' trade relations, and usually - low necessity for tariffs.

The EU just established such an open trade agreement with the Mercosur states, and we (and the US and every other major trading block) has many of them throughout the world.

But open access to a market is more than that. F.e. same ruleset for safety regulations, same ruleset for norms and standards, ...
so a 'common market' is more than just no tariffs.


Trade agreements also are there to ensure 'investment safety'. Meaning - a company says - we want to mine your rare earth elements, we buy a license - which guarantees us x conditions and amounts of product. If then a protest comes along and destroys our operation for local interest reasons, you (state) have to reimburse us. Those are usually specific contracts, but to get them set up, you need a framework and thats usually fixed (set up) in WTO laws, or a bilateral trade agreement as well.

In the case with China, the chinese government currently accuses the US to use trade 'as a weapon' hurting (/containing ) the chinese economy on purpose.

And in that case, thats not wrong. The US has an interest in slowing down chinese growth (Which they can do by controlling certain supply chains (f.e. because you have to pay for some stuff in USD (or some credit lines can be controlled by them, ...). ).

And/or because they impose tariffs (which slows income flow of lets say USD).

Companies ((/natural) monopolies) can do that as well btw. So if a large part of lets say batteries internationally is produced by Samsung and lets say germany wants to set up an electric car production, and then orders x million cells from Samsung, and then Samsung says - we can only deliver a fifth of your order in three years... It also slows down economic growth.

(And then Europe has battery summits, and founds a battery production industry, and then finds out, that the resources for battery production are mostly controlled by China - so now they have to source some of their own, and get into resource mining as well, and all of it is expensive - but not only having monopolies is good for production security, and so on and so forth.. )

And this is why - when canada arrests the daughter of the Huawai owner on behest of the US, stuff like this develops:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/14/world/asia/china-canadian-arrested.html


edit: Sorry, should have edited the last post. Next time. I promise.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

A simple google search does a lot.

...
It was a rhetorical question. Obviously trade deals are possible without free movement of people. But the EU wants to make an example out of the UK so that other member states don't have the same idea.

 

[kumikochan]

...
It was a rhetorical question. Obviously trade deals are possible without free movement of people. But the EU wants to make an example out of the UK so that other member states don't have the same idea.

It's not making an example, it is in the treaty all countries signed and is the groundwork of the union. It's like asking a country to change their entire constitution . It is the constitution of Europe so no it's not making an example out of the UK, making an example out of the UK would be kicking them out long ago for the constant bickering they did, they left on their own rejecting the constitution so they have to deal with that if they don't want anything to do with the constitution. It's not the place of Europe to do that but theirs and theirs alone, that's it

 

[supersonicwaffle]

But the EU wants to make an example out of the UK so that other member states don't have the same idea.

Look, if you cancel your gym membership you don't get access to the gym. It doesn't mean the gym owners or the other members are extorting you or that you're being made an example of.
The victim narrative is really tiresome. The british people voted to leave the EU and they will get their will.
They negotiated a deal that didn't make it through the british parliament.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Let's take your gym example.
The gym still offers non-members a 10€ per day training session. Except for those non-members who used to be a member. Thereby the gym owner wants to motivate current members never to become non-members.

Of course the UK can't expect the same tariff situation as before, but the EU is signaling no deals at all, especially not by single member states with the UK. Or am I wrong?

 

[Foxi4]

Let's take your gym example.
The gym still offers non-members a 10€ per day training session. Except for those non-members who used to be a member. Thereby the gym owner wants to motivate current members never to become non-members.

Of course the UK can't expect the same tariff situation as before, but the EU is signaling no deals at all, especially not by single member states with the UK. Or am I wrong?

Let's assume that you have a point and that the actions of the EU are punitive... So what? It's the UK that's choosing to leave. Preventing any future "exits" is in the EU's interest, there is nothing "unfair" about it, it's cause and effect.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

Let's take your gym example.
The gym still offers non-members a 10€ per day training session. Except for those non-members who used to be a member. Thereby the gym owner wants to motivate current members never to become non-members.

Of course the UK can't expect the same tariff situation as before, but the EU is signaling no deals at all, especially not by single member states with the UK. Or am I wrong?

I believe you're wrong. I take it you're referering to Switzerland and Norway as non-members? It's not a 10€ training session, Norway for example has accepted more than 75% of the EU guidelines and adopted more than 6000 EU laws as national law as a non-member. The british don't want to do that, it's been one of the main arguments to leave the EU, the whole shtick about sovereignity.
These non-member states are operating almost like a full member to get access to the market.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Let's assume that you have a point and that the actions of the EU are punitive... So what?

It was denied even though I find it obvious. I'm okay with it if sb has this position. I just wanted people to be honest about it.

I take it you're referering to Switzerland and Norway as non-members?

No, I meant in general. Do you think there will be trade deals or lowering of tariffs post Brexit? Because the EU has trade deals with other countries (besides Switzerland and Norway).

 

[Foxi4]

It was denied even though I find it obvious. I'm okay with it if sb has this position. I just wanted people to be honest about it.

I think it would be completely ridiculous to think otherwise, there's just nothing wrong with that. The UK is not being victimised here because the UK is not a defenseless toddler - decisions like this have consequences. Any carrot needs to necessarily come with a stick, I don't understand why people are even trying to defend that point when it's moot.