What would "No Deal" mean for you?

[Saracen999]

Hence why i put may and might in quotations, personally i don't believe goods will be cheaper but it's obvious some people do.

I personally don't believe they'll be cheaper as we're already party to some 150 FTA's that reduce WTO tariffs and we'll no longer be signed up to those if we don't sign a WA, yes over time we'll be able to sign new FTA's but that's going to take a very long time, its taken us over two years to negotiate a WA that it seems no one wants and that's the easy part.

If we managed to replace the treaties we're currently signed up to at the rate of one every six months we're still talking about 75+ years, however I'm aware others may not consider that to be a problem or maybe unaware of how many treaties we're party to via our EU membership so for the sake of compromise and consensus i believe it's perhaps not helpful to just shut down the debate by simply telling someone they're wrong.

All that is true, and in part, why I said "nobidy knows".

But, will it take 75+ years?

I believe, and I stress believe, that a LOT will happen much faster than that. Why? For a start, we are still a significant-sized economy. Not on the scale of the EU collectively, obviously, but nonetheless, for most of those countries the EU has trade deals, we are still a relatively big economy, and therefore relatively big market for them. And, currently, we have exactly the same regulations and standards as the EU, which means that those exustibg deals provide, at a minimum, a strong template for future deals.

If we are talking about countries with which we akready have amicable arrangements AND it is in the mutual best interest of both parties, then every incentive exists to come to a deal.

Will it happen overnight? Obviously not, but could it be quite quickly? Well, depends on how you define it but certainly in economic terms, yes. We should be able to replicate a substantial proportion inside 5 years, which is "short-term" in economics, or at most, short-medium.

EU membership, on the other hand, is long-term. I doubt we'll ever (short of cslsmitoys changes) get another chsnce to leave, partly because it'll be a long time before politicians ever give us, the people, another direct say, and partly because the nature of the EU, and it's avowed primary intent, ever-closer union, may entanglement a function of time. As we're seeing it's hard enough unrsngling now. Imagine how much harder, if not impossible, if we didn't already have our own currency.

By the way, remember those doom and gloom forecasts? Half a million extra unemployed. I note today's unemployment figures show 140,000 more in employment, and the lowest unemployment rate since the 70s.


The thing is, and this is central, that the UK is quite capable of standing on it's own, and working with others, including the EU. That's not to say, as I've been accused of, that I long for days of imperial power or think we're goingvyo ge strutting around the world like the US does. Far from it, I think we should be doing less than now, not more, in terms of acting like a superpower because we aren't, haven't bern since pre-WW1 and IMHO, are better for not being.

But we csn, IMHO, stwnd on our own, and make friends and alliances, especially in trade. That, and a natural antipathy to the over-centralised beaurocray that is Brussels. It's certainly nothing to do with the racism, xenophobia, etc, I usually get accused of, over nany years, as a eurosceptic


And by the way Corky, this is exactly the kind of discussion I'd hoped the whole country could have, pre-referendum, without the hysteria, distortion, exaggeration and bile we were treated to.

Thsnk you for that.

[Saracen999]

Saracn , I would actually prefer NZ butter. The cows graze in the sun in lush fields in a breathtaking scenery.

Well so would I, but I also like Kerrygold. And Kerry (assuming that's where it comes from) is pretty lush and breathtaking, too. Ireland would be very high (if not top) on my list of preferred places to live, if not the UK, along with NZ and, well, Tuscany.

I guess as a eurosceptic, I'd better cross Ireland and Tuscany off the list.

[Saracen999]

I'm confused about how you can think that prices will go down when we revert to WTO terms.

You don't need a FTA agreement to trade tariff-free with someone in your country. So customs unions and FTAs serve to expand the size of your trading area. And then MFN rules prevent that from being allowed to be used to discriminate against other countries. Which is in and of itself a blunt instrument that will cause some problems, but those problems are deemed as lesser than not having those rules.

I assume - i.e. I haven't checked - that the US and China have their own trade agreement, which can be adjusted, which is what's happening when they impose tariffs on each other. Either that or they have enough other trade agreements with other countries that, when they know the tariffs they apply to China are applied to all the rest, with whom they don't have agreements, it doesn't matter that much.

I'm not talking about trade within a country, and FTA terms don't extend to WTO MFN countries, so just because a country has an FTA with another doesn't mean that those FTA terms are offered to everybody else. That's why FTA's exist. Similarly, regional agreements supercede WTO tetms to, to members ....like the EU.

[Corky34]

There MIGHT be an impact on prices, though modelling what and, yes, where, is another complex issue. And yes, price is a major factor in trade but not the only one. Another is market size (one of the primary factors in modern gravity models", and directly allied with that, respective market segment growth rates.

At the very least, there is an argument that, trade-wise neither a Deal Brexit nor a No Deal Brexit will be the unmitigated disaster the establishment end of Remain wouldchave us believe.

They might be right, but they might not. Nobody, and I've saidcit many times, nobody knows.

The thing is we can assign probabilities to those 'might's' and 'may's', granted in the case of economic modeling the further into the future you go the further the probability falls but that's only natural when trying to predict the output of a highly complex system so far into the future, especially one involving, at times, unpredictable humans.

However when it comes to the prices of goods we can say with almost a 100% accuracy that if in three years time, or even two months from now, we increase the price of something by 20% that the vast majority of that price increase will be passed onto the consumer, it may still be a 'might' or maybe' but for all intense and purposes we may as well call it a known fact.

There's really no escaping the fact that putting up trade barriers is going to lead to price increases, at least in the short to medium term.

So ...assume the stats on EU member trade are adjusted as I described, and the actuwl result, a year or ten down the road proves to be "neutral or minimal negative impact". If you take away project fear, that everybody will be, what was it, £3500/year worse off, that we'd hit an "immediate recession" and "lose half a million jobs, I wonder what that would have had on the refefendum result?

When you put those scare stories on one side, and fatuous £350m side-of-a-bus claims and rampant immigration from Turkey, etc, on the other, we were treated to a disgraceful display of contempt from both sides.

While I'm not going to attempt to defend the politicians i would like to say that while the exact numbers are certainly questionable the general gist that we'd be worse off have already come true, not only has there been a marked slow down in the economy but estimates put every household being roughly £900 worse of since just the vote.

As i implied i know there's a big difference between £3500 and roughly £900, and i also know we can't be a 100% certain that the economic modeling would have panned out as shown in the first link, however we both seem to agree that trying to predict the outcome of a complex system, in this case two years into the future, can be difficult. Do we know with scientific accuracy that an alternate UK that never voted to leave would've continued to grow as shown in that first link? No. Do we know 100% that every family are £900 worse of since the vote? Again, No.

But we can say with almost certainty that most families are worse off to some degree and that the economy has slowed, and that's just the effect from the fall in the value of the pound as we've not actually left yet, if or when we add the increased costs of goods and doing business to that it paints a pretty clear picture IMO.

I've often said there's rational arguments for staying in, and for leaving, but neither got much more than passing mention in the campaign. Instead, we got biased (both ways) propaganda.

Personally, it comes down to a strong preference to be an independent country, not a region of an EU superstate, and especially not the EU as it is now. If it were heavily reformed, then maybe, but UK politicians have spent decades arguing that, and got nowhere beyond securing, for ourselves, a few crucial opt-outs (Eurozone, Schengen,,etc). But meantime, project Eurozone marches ever onwards, and all we've succeeded in doing is ending up msrginalised, half-in, hslf-out, while being wmong a handful of countries that are paying for it.

And in response to the usual reaction to "paying for it" which is that we'll be worse off out and not contributing than in, and contributing ...only if those 'disaster' trade forecasts are right and, again, obody, but nobody knows.

Politicians being politicians i guess, I'm not sure they know how not to talk to people without the spin (aka: propaganda).

It seems odd though that you say you've got a strong preference to be an independent country and then go on to mention the opt-outs we secured, doesn't securing the opt-out show that we are an independent country, isn't choosing what 'rules' to follow and what ones not too something you can only do when you're not subject to another's authority?

Just like the whole point of the EU customs union is to reduce intra- tariffs and barriers, and increase inter- barriers and tariffs, i.e. protect mrmber zone industries, and hence jobs, from overseas competition. Combine that with CAP and you get butter mountains and wine lakes .... th8ugh the CAP has been heavily reformed since then.

Ad for "cheaper", I'm talking comparatively, to current rates, not to each other at some future pojnt in time.

Product A carries 20% tariffs, and Product B carries 12% tariffs, and BOTH are reduced to, say, 4% WTO rates? Which one becomes cheaper, compared to today's prices?

Part of the point of protectionist customs rules is to protect relatively high cost "home" products against low'cost forrign competition, specifically by imposing high tariffs and non-tariff barriers right around the common external borders.

That's sort of true and sort of false IMO, yes being a member removes trade barriers between members and yes not being a member increases trade barriers, but it's perhaps a little misleading to say there are trade barriers with all non-members. The fact that the EU has around 150 FTA's and other treaties related to trade with non-members shows that existing WTO trade barriers have been lowered, otherwise why sign a FTA.

That's not to say trade barriers on some product with some countries don't exist, or that they've signed FTA and other treaties with every country on earth, however it's perhaps a little misleading to imply that it's only about protectionist customs rules and that product A carries 20% tariffs, and Product B carries 12% tariffs, and BOTH are reduced to, say, 4% WTO rates.

You rarely sign FTA's that increase tariffs or increase non-tariff barriers, it would defeat the point of them and it's one of the reason TTIP fell apart, you sign FTA's to reduce tariffs and remove non-tariff barriers. In your example the percentages would actually be the other way around, under WTO rules product A and B would carry the 20 and 12 percent tariff and signing a FTA or bilateral trade agreement would lower those tariffs.

Obviously that's not a hard and fast rule as tariffs and non-tariff barriers differ on nearly everything and from one country or trading blocks to another, and no ones forcing you to stick to your agreed WTO schedule as can be seen in the trade war between Trump and China.

As Barbossa said "the code is more what you call guidelines, than actual rules."

I believe, and I stress believe, that a LOT will happen much faster than that. Why? For a start, we are still a significant-sized economy. Not on the scale of the EU collectively, obviously, but nonetheless, for most of those countries the EU has trade deals, we are still a relatively big economy, and therefore relatively big market for them. And, currently, we have exactly the same regulations and standards as the EU, which means that those exustibg deals provide, at a minimum, a strong template for future deals.

If we are talking about countries with which we akready have amicable arrangements AND it is in the mutual best interest of both parties, then every incentive exists to come to a deal.

Will it happen overnight? Obviously not, but could it be quite quickly? Well, depends on how you define it but certainly in economic terms, yes. We should be able to replicate a substantial proportion inside 5 years, which is "short-term" in economics, or at most, short-medium.

I wish i shared your optimism, unfortunately other countries are already saying that simply copying and pasting what we were cosignatories to within the EU is not acceptable, among them are America, Canada, Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, and Brazil, that's simply from trying to divide up the quotas between us and the EU, they don't like the idea that the amount of stuff they can sell into the EU would go down.

I agree though that the standards, a part of the non-tariff barriers, should be easier as we're already aligned with those but if we're going to follow the same standards forever doesn't that defeat part of the reason for leaving? If we can't set our own standards because we have to remain aligned with the EU, or any other country for that matter, then we're not really independent are we?

I mostly agree that replicating a substantial proportion of our trade relationship with the EU inside 5 years could be possible but again doesn't that rather defeat the point of leaving? If we just replicate what we currently have it's going to reduce our chances of negotiating a trade deal with the rest of the world, e.g America isn't going to like that we're aligned to EU rules and will want us to lower our standards so they can sell stuff into our markets but we won't be able to do that because we'll be aligned with the EU rules.

And that 5 years is just to replicate what we currently have, what about the other 100+ FTA's and other treaties with the rest of the world that we'll need to replace so we're not exposed to WTO tariffs.

EU membership, on the other hand, is long-term. I doubt we'll ever (short of cslsmitoys changes) get another chsnce to leave, partly because it'll be a long time before politicians ever give us, the people, another direct say, and partly because the nature of the EU, and it's avowed primary intent, ever-closer union, may entanglement a function of time. As we're seeing it's hard enough unrsngling now. Imagine how much harder, if not impossible, if we didn't already have our own currency.

But that's the thing, we don't have to follow along with that ever closer political union, we choose not to be part of Schengen, we choose to not accept the single currency, we picked and chose what parts of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union we'd follow, and we've opted out of areas such as freedom, security and justice.

By the way, remember those doom and gloom forecasts? Half a million extra unemployed. I note today's unemployment figures show 140,000 more in employment, and the lowest unemployment rate since the 70s.

TBH I've never paid much attention to employment & unemployment figures as it's fairly well know that governments, of all colours, manipulate the hell out of them. I don't want to take the thread OT and although i could probably ramble on for pages and pages about how they do it I'll just suggest you look into how they record the numbers (only 53,000 households, less than 1% of the UK population), what the definition of employed & unemployed are, and the rise in things like sanctions.

The thing is, and this is central, that the UK is quite capable of standing on it's own, and working with others, including the EU. That's not to say, as I've been accused of, that I long for days of imperial power or think we're goingvyo ge strutting around the world like the US does. Far from it, I think we should be doing less than now, not more, in terms of acting like a superpower because we aren't, haven't bern since pre-WW1 and IMHO, are better for not being.

And i don't doubt that it is, i mean it's not like we're going to sink into the north sea, at least not until global warming gets properly going.

I'd question the ability of the current government to work with others though, outside of the UK bubble other countries have viewed the way we've we've handled the negotiations so far in a rather dim light, in fact we've been making quiet a few people rather unhappy.

But we csn, IMHO, stwnd on our own, and make friends and alliances, especially in trade. That, and a natural antipathy to the over-centralised beaurocray that is Brussels. It's certainly nothing to do with the racism, xenophobia, etc, I usually get accused of, over nany years, as a eurosceptic

And by the way Corky, this is exactly the kind of discussion I'd hoped the whole country could have, pre-referendum, without the hysteria, distortion, exaggeration and bile we were treated to.

Thsnk you for that.

Unfortunately sometime when we debate a subject in public we open ourselves up to, shall we say, the less savory elements of society, I'm just waiting for someone to pile into me for what I've just posted

And thank you also. (I've been dying to use that emote for ages)

[opel80uk]

By the way, remember those doom and gloom forecasts? Half a million extra unemployed. I note today's unemployment figures show 140,000 more in employment, and the lowest unemployment rate since the 70s.

Just on that, because I hear it being banded around quite a good bit as evidence of the economy doing well despite Brexit, the ONS has confirmed that to be officially classed as employed, you just need to be working a minimum of 1 hour a week. That technically may well be the case if the ONS is defining employment, but I don't think most right minded people would consider, for example, someone on a Zero Hour contract working 1 hour a week as 'in employment'. Unless there is a proper breakdown of the employment figures, they are meaningless. Nor were there zero hour contracts in the 80's, so the comparison of today's figures with those of post 70's is nonsensical. I'd also like to know whether in the 80s the CNS considered someone doing 1 hour a week of work as 'Employed'.

[Saracen999]

Just on that, because I hear it being banded around quite a good bit as evidence of the economy doing well despite Brexit, the ONS has confirmed that to be officially classed as employed, you just need to be working a minimum of 1 hour a week. That technically may well be the case if the ONS is defining employment, but I don't think most right minded people would consider, for example, someone on a Zero Hour contract working 1 hour a week as 'in employment'. Unless there is a proper breakdown of the employment figures, they are meaningless. Nor were there zero hour contracts in the 80's, so the comparison of today's figures with those of post 70's is nonsensical. I'd also like to know whether in the 80s the CNS considered someone doing 1 hour a week of work as 'Employed'.

Some good points there, but one thing absolutely implicit in all of that is a point I've often made, and referred to in terms of it's result earlier ("garbage-in, garbafe-out", even for the best econometrics). The point .... the old saying, "lies, damned lies ... and statistics.

One of the most misused terms in our language .... "average". It isn't a defined mathematical calculation, it's a whole class of statistics. For instance, the mean, median and mode are all averages, but taking it further, just for "mean" is it arithmetic mean, geometric or harmonic? Cubic, interquartile, truncated. Windsorised truncated? And, weighted or unweighted?

Even sticking to median, mean and simple, basic arithmetic mean (which is what most people assume "average" means, when in fact unless specified it could be any of a number of these, depending on popukation data type), for a given simple data set the "average" can be vastly different. And even that assumes the data set is accurate, with no deliberate or unintended bias is sampling.

So I certainly wouldn't take any one figure as indicative of the health of the economy. It is far, FAR more complex than that, and one reason why is exactly what you mention .... changes in definition over time.

But that wasn't whatI said, or my point.

The point, and it was pretty much just in passing, was that "half a million more unemployed as a result of voting leave", just like "recession", and "emergency budget".

Presumably, when people like Osborne, as part of the Remain campaign, came up with such scare tactics, they were relying on the same official (ONS and OBR) figures as now being used. And such disasters simply have not happened, as a result of simply a Leave vote, never mind actual exit, as was threatened.

Many official Remain campaigners like referring back to that fatuous £350m bus claim, but never mention the official, establishment fear campaign.

As for zero-hour contracts, I think that's a thread i itself, and I have a view, if you want it. In brief, having been on one since well before they were called that, and certainly before that term hit public awareness, I can say with some authority that they suit a lot of people. Me included.

However, I'd be the first to agree that they have been taken well beyond where they are a fundamentally good idea, and misused by some companies to cut costs and browbeat staff, often where the nature of the employment really amounts to standard, full-time employment and they should not be used.

I certainly would support tightening up to protect workers in that latter group, probably with legislation, not least because they are often the most vulnerable workers, long hours, minimum wage and ZHC's result in beggar-all security.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, though. I (and colleagues) were not vulnerable, certainly not minimum wage, and were happy to respond on an ad-hoc basis, with no guarantee of work in any given week, to a genuinely unpredictable need. Had that work been a fixed, guaranreed but committed (by me) x hours per week, neither I nor most of my team colleagues would have agreed to do it, because we absolutely didn't want to be committed.

Now THAT kind of zero-hour contract certainly existed back into the 70s, probably much beyond, and I've been on one, on and off, since the early 80s, even if it didn't show up in stats as such.

[Saracen999]

One more thing, Opel.

While I certainly agree about the perils of comparing stats over long petoods of time, and of political manipulation, there is also a good reason that many definitions change, which is that circumstances change.

The primary purpose of such stats is that, while hugely imperfect, it is the best we can do in analysing past results, as a tool to inform policy moving forward, to better future results.

We just all should be wary of politicians, of any political colour, usingvthem simplistically. That's the lies, damned lies and statistics, thingy.

[Ttaskmaster]

Unfortunately sometime when we debate a subject in public we open ourselves up to, shall we say, the less savory elements of society, I'm just waiting for someone to pile into me for what I've just posted

Sorry... all of my operators are busy at the moment. Your post is important to me, and I will be with you as soon as possible, so please continue to hold...