BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

Got to love this "positive" article from a right wing think tank, at first glance conclusive evidence that the EU will need to give us a good deal after Brexit..... until you read the last paragraph.......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... -after-br/

Am I being thick or does this make no sense?

My understanding is that they are not paying higher tariffs, they are paying a higher total as they export more to us than we export to them.

There is a huge assumption that hey will not increase prices to pay the tariff.

Why does the man on the street not realise that tariffs are bad for them - prices go up to discourage you from buying them.

coopster_the_1st

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And within those forecasts there are wide ranges.

How will worrying help?

And the general thrust of those forecasts was what? Positive or negative (even with a wide range of forecasts, you can get a general idea, surely?)

If you want to call gloomy forecasts by economists just "worrying", then let's just listen to the nice upbeat forecasts. That'll stop all the problems.

Sorry, just a bit of worrying... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 80081.html

Now to find those nice cheerful forecasts...

You mean like the ones that say we are still growing and still forecast to grow in future?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/25/brexit-vote-will-not-dent-economy-this-year-as-uk-growth-forecas/
http://www.pwc.co.uk/services/economics-policy/insights/uk-economic-outlook.html

...at rates that are comparable to our major EU trading partners.

Now stop being so defeatist.

I do question how much of this EU 'growth' is down to the €80bn a month being injected by the ECB. They've come out today and said they are likely to continue QE beyond March 2017.

When I looked at this for Q1 2016, EU GDP grew by €88bn when the ECB had printed €180bn via QE

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And within those forecasts there are wide ranges.

How will worrying help?

And the general thrust of those forecasts was what? Positive or negative (even with a wide range of forecasts, you can get a general idea, surely?)

If you want to call gloomy forecasts by economists just "worrying", then let's just listen to the nice upbeat forecasts. That'll stop all the problems.

Sorry, just a bit of worrying... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 80081.html

Now to find those nice cheerful forecasts...

You mean like the ones that say we are still growing and still forecast to grow in future?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/25/brexit-vote-will-not-dent-economy-this-year-as-uk-growth-forecas/
http://www.pwc.co.uk/services/economics-policy/insights/uk-economic-outlook.html

...at rates that are comparable to our major EU trading partners.

Now stop being so defeatist.

I do question how much of this EU 'growth' is down to the €80bn a month being injected by the ECB. They've come out today and said they are likely to continue QE beyond March 2017.

When I looked at this for Q1 2016, EU GDP grew by €88bn when the ECB had printed €180bn via QE

I concede I am not the cleverest and my lack of understanding of QE makes me think it is the monetary equivalent of the emperors new clothes. Are you sure there should be a correlation between value of QE and value added to GDP? I thought buying bonds off banks magically gave them increased liquidity which they would be desperate to turn into soft loans for companies which were desperate to invest but previously had no access to funding.

coopster_the_1st

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Got to love this "positive" article from a right wing think tank, at first glance conclusive evidence that the EU will need to give us a good deal after Brexit..... until you read the last paragraph.......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... -after-br/

Am I being thick or does this make no sense?

My understanding is that they are not paying higher tariffs, they are paying a higher total as they export more to us than we export to them.

There is a huge assumption that hey will not increase prices to pay the tariff.

Why does the man on the street not realise that tariffs are bad for them - prices go up to discourage you from buying them.

Why would the increase prices to pay the tariff?

The tariff is a duty on the product or service.

Ignoring the man on the street side of the equation, taking the above article, the UK could subsidise our exports to compensate for charging a lower price to take account of the tariff and still have extra income of £7.7bn. While if the EU were to take the same stance to subside their exports it would cost them £7.7bn

Then there is man on the street side where the UK government has £7.7bn available to provide say a lower VAT rate on these goods that have increased in price.

I truly hope the EU do not force us to go down the tariff route but we have not heard anything positive from them on this

And while we're talking about the WTO, here is their head changing what he said before the vote and saying Brexit will not cause the UK trade disruption and that we are already a WTO member - http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-will-n ... s-10632803

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Got to love this "positive" article from a right wing think tank, at first glance conclusive evidence that the EU will need to give us a good deal after Brexit..... until you read the last paragraph.......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... -after-br/

Am I being thick or does this make no sense?

My understanding is that they are not paying higher tariffs, they are paying a higher total as they export more to us than we export to them.

There is a huge assumption that hey will not increase prices to pay the tariff.

Why does the man on the street not realise that tariffs are bad for them - prices go up to discourage you from buying them.

Why would the increase prices to pay the tariff?

The tariff is a duty on the product or service.

Ignoring the man on the street side of the equation, taking the above article, the UK could subsidise our exports to compensate for charging a lower price to take account of the tariff and still have extra income of £7.7bn. While if the EU were to take the same stance to subside their exports it would cost them £7.7bn

Then there is man on the street side where the UK government has £7.7bn available to provide say a lower VAT rate on these goods that have increased in price.

I truly hope the EU do not force us to go down the tariff route but we have not heard anything positive from them on this

And while we're talking about the WTO, here is their head changing what he said before the vote and saying Brexit will not cause the UK trade disruption and that we are already a WTO member - http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-will-n ... s-10632803

The tariff works like VAT so the man in the street would see prices go up. This is one of the benefits of free trade.

It is illegal to compensate companies/industries for tariffs - it counts as state aid. This makes the promise to Nissan highly dubious.

Trade rules are complex but my understanding is that you have to apply the same tariff on a product/service wherever they come from unless you have a trade deal that supercedes that. So if we have no deal with the EU we have to pay the same tariff as everybody else. We as consumers should resist the urge to impose tariffs back.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Got to love this "positive" article from a right wing think tank, at first glance conclusive evidence that the EU will need to give us a good deal after Brexit..... until you read the last paragraph.......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... -after-br/

Am I being thick or does this make no sense?

My understanding is that they are not paying higher tariffs, they are paying a higher total as they export more to us than we export to them.

There is a huge assumption that hey will not increase prices to pay the tariff.

Why does the man on the street not realise that tariffs are bad for them - prices go up to discourage you from buying them.

My take on it was the EU pays higher absolute amounts because of the amounts they export that are subject to duty. The tariffs themselves are normally the same in both directions for a given product type.

We export more services which are not subject to tariffs.

Stevo_666

Coopster the 1st wrote:

And while we're talking about the WTO, here is their head changing what he said before the vote and saying Brexit will not cause the UK trade disruption and that we are already a WTO member - http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-will-n ... s-10632803

Good find - backs up what I was saying a little while ago that the UK WTO mmembership will not be a material issue. Some of the defeatists were trying to scaremonger that we might somehow get ejected from the WTO.

coopster_the_1st

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And within those forecasts there are wide ranges.

How will worrying help?

And the general thrust of those forecasts was what? Positive or negative (even with a wide range of forecasts, you can get a general idea, surely?)

If you want to call gloomy forecasts by economists just "worrying", then let's just listen to the nice upbeat forecasts. That'll stop all the problems.

Sorry, just a bit of worrying... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 80081.html

Now to find those nice cheerful forecasts...

You mean like the ones that say we are still growing and still forecast to grow in future?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/25/brexit-vote-will-not-dent-economy-this-year-as-uk-growth-forecas/
http://www.pwc.co.uk/services/economics-policy/insights/uk-economic-outlook.html

...at rates that are comparable to our major EU trading partners.

Now stop being so defeatist.

I do question how much of this EU 'growth' is down to the €80bn a month being injected by the ECB. They've come out today and said they are likely to continue QE beyond March 2017.

When I looked at this for Q1 2016, EU GDP grew by €88bn when the ECB had printed €180bn via QE

I concede I am not the cleverest and my lack of understanding of QE makes me think it is the monetary equivalent of the emperors new clothes. Are you sure there should be a correlation between value of QE and value added to GDP? I thought buying bonds off banks magically gave them increased liquidity which they would be desperate to turn into soft loans for companies which were desperate to invest but previously had no access to funding.

Does anyone really understand the effects of QE?

It is increasing the money supply and asset prices have increased under QE so there must be some trickle down effect.

A quick search I found this - http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publicat ... 110301.pdf

BOE wrote:

Summary of the macro effects
If we compute the range across the different estimation
methods, using the middle of the ranges of the bottom-up
estimates, this would suggest that QE may have raised the
level of real GDP by 1.5% to 2% and increased inflation by
between 0.75 to 1.5 percentage points (as shown in the bottom
row of Table C).(2)
These estimates are clearly highly uncertain, particularly as none of the methods used to produce
them fully capture all the likely transmission channels set out earlier, but they do suggest that the effects of QE were economically significant

Stevo_666

It suggests that without QE, some of our major EU trading partners would be posting negative growth figures. So in reality, the UK is still growing faster on a like for like basis, even after the recent UK growth forecast revisions.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Got to love this "positive" article from a right wing think tank, at first glance conclusive evidence that the EU will need to give us a good deal after Brexit..... until you read the last paragraph.......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... -after-br/

Am I being thick or does this make no sense?

My understanding is that they are not paying higher tariffs, they are paying a higher total as they export more to us than we export to them.

There is a huge assumption that hey will not increase prices to pay the tariff.

Why does the man on the street not realise that tariffs are bad for them - prices go up to discourage you from buying them.

My take on it was the EU pays higher absolute amounts because of the amounts they export that are subject to duty. The tariffs themselves are normally the same in both directions for a given product type.

We export more services which are not subject to tariffs.

Makes sense that they export more and more stuff with tariffs

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

And while we're talking about the WTO, here is their head changing what he said before the vote and saying Brexit will not cause the UK trade disruption and that we are already a WTO member - http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-will-n ... s-10632803

Good find - backs up what I was saying a little while ago that the UK WTO mmembership will not be a material issue. Some of the defeatists were trying to scaremonger that we might somehow get ejected from the WTO.

I have tried reading up on this and the WTO implications is like peeling an onion. Yes we have kept our WTO membership but we have no agreements and legally can not negotiate new ones until we have left the EU.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

It suggests that without QE, some of our major EU trading partners would be posting negative growth figures. So in reality, the UK is still growing faster on a like for like basis, even after the recent UK growth forecast revisions.

You view the world in a very tribal way. Why would anybody in the U.K. be consoled to know that others were doing worse?

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And within those forecasts there are wide ranges.

How will worrying help?

And the general thrust of those forecasts was what? Positive or negative (even with a wide range of forecasts, you can get a general idea, surely?)

If you want to call gloomy forecasts by economists just "worrying", then let's just listen to the nice upbeat forecasts. That'll stop all the problems.

Sorry, just a bit of worrying... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 80081.html

Now to find those nice cheerful forecasts...

You mean like the ones that say we are still growing and still forecast to grow in future?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/25/brexit-vote-will-not-dent-economy-this-year-as-uk-growth-forecas/
http://www.pwc.co.uk/services/economics-policy/insights/uk-economic-outlook.html

...at rates that are comparable to our major EU trading partners.

Now stop being so defeatist.

I do question how much of this EU 'growth' is down to the €80bn a month being injected by the ECB. They've come out today and said they are likely to continue QE beyond March 2017.

When I looked at this for Q1 2016, EU GDP grew by €88bn when the ECB had printed €180bn via QE

I concede I am not the cleverest and my lack of understanding of QE makes me think it is the monetary equivalent of the emperors new clothes. Are you sure there should be a correlation between value of QE and value added to GDP? I thought buying bonds off banks magically gave them increased liquidity which they would be desperate to turn into soft loans for companies which were desperate to invest but previously had no access to funding.

Does anyone really understand the effects of QE?

It is increasing the money supply and asset prices have increased under QE so there must be some trickle down effect.

A quick search I found this - http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publicat ... 110301.pdf

BOE wrote:

Summary of the macro effects
If we compute the range across the different estimation
methods, using the middle of the ranges of the bottom-up
estimates, this would suggest that QE may have raised the
level of real GDP by 1.5% to 2% and increased inflation by
between 0.75 to 1.5 percentage points (as shown in the bottom
row of Table C).(2)
These estimates are clearly highly uncertain, particularly as none of the methods used to produce
them fully capture all the likely transmission channels set out earlier, but they do suggest that the effects of QE were economically significant

Not just the effects -the whole thing imo is a crock of sh1te. If your problem was a lack of available credit due to banks experiencing liquidity problems then fine give it a go.

If your problem is that nobody wants to invest because of a lack of confidence what is the point in boosting the liquidity of banks?

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

It suggests that without QE, some of our major EU trading partners would be posting negative growth figures. So in reality, the UK is still growing faster on a like for like basis, even after the recent UK growth forecast revisions.

You view the world in a very tribal way. Why would anybody in the U.K. be consoled to know that others were doing worse?

Just putting our 'disaster' into context.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

And while we're talking about the WTO, here is their head changing what he said before the vote and saying Brexit will not cause the UK trade disruption and that we are already a WTO member - http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-will-n ... s-10632803

Good find - backs up what I was saying a little while ago that the UK WTO mmembership will not be a material issue. Some of the defeatists were trying to scaremonger that we might somehow get ejected from the WTO.

I have tried reading up on this and the WTO implications is like peeling an onion. Yes we have kept our WTO membership but we have no agreements and legally can not negotiate new ones until we have left the EU.

This is what the head of the WTO said:
"Trade will not stop, it will continue and members 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."

Expect there will be some form of grandfathering.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

It suggests that without QE, some of our major EU trading partners would be posting negative growth figures. So in reality, the UK is still growing faster on a like for like basis, even after the recent UK growth forecast revisions.

You view the world in a very tribal way. Why would anybody in the U.K. be consoled to know that others were doing worse?

Just putting our 'disaster' into context.

Maybe we could enforce a set of economic indicators that we deem to be relevant. Possibly agree definitions of words such as "crisis"

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

And while we're talking about the WTO, here is their head changing what he said before the vote and saying Brexit will not cause the UK trade disruption and that we are already a WTO member - http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-will-n ... s-10632803

Good find - backs up what I was saying a little while ago that the UK WTO mmembership will not be a material issue. Some of the defeatists were trying to scaremonger that we might somehow get ejected from the WTO.

I have tried reading up on this and the WTO implications is like peeling an onion. Yes we have kept our WTO membership but we have no agreements and legally can not negotiate new ones until we have left the EU.

This is what the head of the WTO said:
"Trade will not stop, it will continue and members 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."

Expect there will be some form of grandfathering.

I am guessing he means standard WTO terms - not good but not the end of the world - i.e. 1% off the rate of growth.

Having read up on it I can not see grandfathering being agreed in the near future.

Stevo_666

How do you think the head of the WTO achieve what he has said?

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

How do you think the head of the WTO achieve what he has said?

Not sure what you are asking.

I don't see anything in that interview that suggests I am wrong that we would end up on standard WTO terms (i.e. Default position if no agreement) whilst negotiating new agreements with anybody who will have us.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

How do you think the head of the WTO achieve what he has said?

Not sure what you are asking.

I don't see anything in that interview that suggests I am wrong that we would end up on standard WTO terms (i.e. Default position if no agreement) whilst negotiating new agreements with anybody who will have us.

You're determined to see the negatives aren't you.

Actually I thought about it and maybe grandfathering is not the most likely rpute. The UK is a WTO member in its own right along with other EU member States and the EU itself. The EU did a sort of collective bargaining job for their terms leaving the EU therefore does not mean that we suddenly shift into some default position on Brexiting. We would keep the terms that we had and then negotiate new ones. Hence what he said about no interruptions.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

How do you think the head of the WTO achieve what he has said?

Not sure what you are asking.

I don't see anything in that interview that suggests I am wrong that we would end up on standard WTO terms (i.e. Default position if no agreement) whilst negotiating new agreements with anybody who will have us.

You're determined to see the negatives aren't you.

Actually I thought about it and maybe grandfathering is not the most likely rpute. The UK is a WTO member in its own right along with other EU member States and the EU itself. The EU did a sort of collective bargaining job for their terms leaving the EU therefore does not mean that we suddenly shift into some default position on Brexiting. We would keep the terms that we had and then negotiate new ones. Hence what he said about no interruptions.

Is it that simple? Not everyone thinks so... https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/201 ... to-brexit/

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

How do you think the head of the WTO achieve what he has said?

Not sure what you are asking.

I don't see anything in that interview that suggests I am wrong that we would end up on standard WTO terms (i.e. Default position if no agreement) whilst negotiating new agreements with anybody who will have us.

You're determined to see the negatives aren't you.

Actually I thought about it and maybe grandfathering is not the most likely rpute. The UK is a WTO member in its own right along with other EU member States and the EU itself. The EU did a sort of collective bargaining job for their terms leaving the EU therefore does not mean that we suddenly shift into some default position on Brexiting. We would keep the terms that we had and then negotiate new ones. Hence what he said about no interruptions.

Is it that simple? Not everyone thinks so... https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/201 ... to-brexit/

That one has been posted before and has been superseded by the views expressed by the head of WTO in the link posted by Coopster.

On a wider note the WTO has over 160 members. That's around 80 of all nations. The idea that one of the largest economies on the planet will be unable to keep its membership going is highly improbable - unless someone is looking very hard for problems to justify a downbeat view. The WTO has a positive agenda - to promote trade.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

How do you think the head of the WTO achieve what he has said?

Not sure what you are asking.

I don't see anything in that interview that suggests I am wrong that we would end up on standard WTO terms (i.e. Default position if no agreement) whilst negotiating new agreements with anybody who will have us.

You're determined to see the negatives aren't you.

Actually I thought about it and maybe grandfathering is not the most likely rpute. The UK is a WTO member in its own right along with other EU member States and the EU itself. The EU did a sort of collective bargaining job for their terms leaving the EU therefore does not mean that we suddenly shift into some default position on Brexiting. We would keep the terms that we had and then negotiate new ones. Hence what he said about no interruptions.

As the head of the WTO I imagine he does not see being on their standard terms as a disaster. He will see them as a way of enabling trade - which they are. Maybe that is what he meant by no interruptions?

Over the last few days I have read up about the WTO. There seem to be a lot of grey areas that would need to be sorted through negotiations. As time is our enemy it is why I would be tempted to give up on the EU and concentrate on sorting out the WTO situation.

Are you saying we would keep our terms from 40 years ago? If so post a link. I am no expert but would not be surprised if current standard WTO terms are preferable.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

How do you think the head of the WTO achieve what he has said?

Not sure what you are asking.

I don't see anything in that interview that suggests I am wrong that we would end up on standard WTO terms (i.e. Default position if no agreement) whilst negotiating new agreements with anybody who will have us.

You're determined to see the negatives aren't you.

Actually I thought about it and maybe grandfathering is not the most likely rpute. The UK is a WTO member in its own right along with other EU member States and the EU itself. The EU did a sort of collective bargaining job for their terms leaving the EU therefore does not mean that we suddenly shift into some default position on Brexiting. We would keep the terms that we had and then negotiate new ones. Hence what he said about no interruptions.

Is it that simple? Not everyone thinks so... https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/201 ... to-brexit/

That one has been posted before and has been superseded by the views expressed by the head of WTO in the link posted by Coopster.

On a wider note the WTO has over 160 members. That's around 80 of all nations. The idea that one of the largest economies on the planet will be unable to keep its membership going is highly improbable - unless someone is looking very hard for problems to justify a downbeat view. The WTO has a positive agenda - to promote trade.

Read what I am saying.
I believe we have kept our WTO membership.
We do not have any current agreements.
This means that we are able to trade with other WTO members on standard terms.
We can negotiate new deals once we have left the EU.

It is very complicated and the more you learn the more in depth subject it becomes. To be honest it is beyond the average journo with 500 words to fill that he to be aimed at Joe public.

pinno

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

How do you think the head of the WTO achieve what he has said?

Not sure what you are asking.

I don't see anything in that interview that suggests I am wrong that we would end up on standard WTO terms (i.e. Default position if no agreement) whilst negotiating new agreements with anybody who will have us.

You're determined to see the negatives aren't you.

Actually I thought about it and maybe grandfathering is not the most likely rpute. The UK is a WTO member in its own right along with other EU member States and the EU itself. The EU did a sort of collective bargaining job for their terms leaving the EU therefore does not mean that we suddenly shift into some default position on Brexiting. We would keep the terms that we had and then negotiate new ones. Hence what he said about no interruptions.

Is it that simple? Not everyone thinks so... https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/201 ... to-brexit/

That one has been posted before and has been superseded by the views expressed by the head of WTO in the link posted by Coopster.

On a wider note the WTO has over 160 members. That's around 80 of all nations. The idea that one of the largest economies on the planet will be unable to keep its membership going is highly improbable - unless someone is looking very hard for problems to justify a downbeat view. The WTO has a positive agenda - to promote trade.

Read what I am saying.
I believe we have kept our WTO membership.
We do not have any current agreements.
This means that we are able to trade with other WTO members on standard terms.
We can negotiate new deals once we have left the EU.

It is very complicated and the more you learn the more in depth subject it becomes. To be honest it is beyond the average journo with 500 words to fill that he to be aimed at Joe public.

One of the Newspapers has lead with the WTO story in tomorrows print. Forget which one.

SKY ran with it too:

The head of the World Trade Organisation has vowed to ensure Britain will not face a trade "vacuum or a disruption", however tough its exit from the European Union.

Roberto Azevedo said that he did not believe the Brexit vote was "anti-trade" and dismissed fears that Britain could suffer a sudden seizure of trade during or after its negotiations with the EU.

In an exclusive interview with Sky News, the WTO director-general also said that while Britain would have to renegotiate its membership of the trade body after its EU departure, the process was relatively straightforward.

surrey_commuter

Pinno wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

How do you think the head of the WTO achieve what he has said?

Not sure what you are asking.

I don't see anything in that interview that suggests I am wrong that we would end up on standard WTO terms (i.e. Default position if no agreement) whilst negotiating new agreements with anybody who will have us.

You're determined to see the negatives aren't you.

Actually I thought about it and maybe grandfathering is not the most likely rpute. The UK is a WTO member in its own right along with other EU member States and the EU itself. The EU did a sort of collective bargaining job for their terms leaving the EU therefore does not mean that we suddenly shift into some default position on Brexiting. We would keep the terms that we had and then negotiate new ones. Hence what he said about no interruptions.

Is it that simple? Not everyone thinks so... https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/201 ... to-brexit/

That one has been posted before and has been superseded by the views expressed by the head of WTO in the link posted by Coopster.

On a wider note the WTO has over 160 members. That's around 80 of all nations. The idea that one of the largest economies on the planet will be unable to keep its membership going is highly improbable - unless someone is looking very hard for problems to justify a downbeat view. The WTO has a positive agenda - to promote trade.

Read what I am saying.
I believe we have kept our WTO membership.
We do not have any current agreements.
This means that we are able to trade with other WTO members on standard terms.
We can negotiate new deals once we have left the EU.

It is very complicated and the more you learn the more in depth subject it becomes. To be honest it is beyond the average journo with 500 words to fill that he to be aimed at Joe public.

One of the Newspapers has lead with the WTO story in tomorrows print. Forget which one.

SKY ran with it too:

The head of the World Trade Organisation has vowed to ensure Britain will not face a trade "vacuum or a disruption", however tough its exit from the European Union.

Roberto Azevedo said that he did not believe the Brexit vote was "anti-trade" and dismissed fears that Britain could suffer a sudden seizure of trade during or after its negotiations with the EU.

In an exclusive interview with Sky News, the WTO director-general also said that while Britain would have to renegotiate its membership of the trade body after its EU departure, the process was relatively straightforward.

Not facing a trade vacuum or a sudden seizure of trade is hardly upbeat

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

How do you think the head of the WTO achieve what he has said?

Not sure what you are asking.

I don't see anything in that interview that suggests I am wrong that we would end up on standard WTO terms (i.e. Default position if no agreement) whilst negotiating new agreements with anybody who will have us.

You're determined to see the negatives aren't you.

Actually I thought about it and maybe grandfathering is not the most likely rpute. The UK is a WTO member in its own right along with other EU member States and the EU itself. The EU did a sort of collective bargaining job for their terms leaving the EU therefore does not mean that we suddenly shift into some default position on Brexiting. We would keep the terms that we had and then negotiate new ones. Hence what he said about no interruptions.

Is it that simple? Not everyone thinks so... https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/201 ... to-brexit/

That one has been posted before and has been superseded by the views expressed by the head of WTO in the link posted by Coopster.

On a wider note the WTO has over 160 members. That's around 80 of all nations. The idea that one of the largest economies on the planet will be unable to keep its membership going is highly improbable - unless someone is looking very hard for problems to justify a downbeat view. The WTO has a positive agenda - to promote trade.

Read what I am saying.
I believe we have kept our WTO membership.
We do not have any current agreements.
This means that we are able to trade with other WTO members on standard terms.
We can negotiate new deals once we have left the EU.

It is very complicated and the more you learn the more in depth subject it becomes. To be honest it is beyond the average journo with 500 words to fill that he to be aimed at Joe public.

That's clear now.

WTO standard terms aren't too shabby - over 95% of my company's products are zero rated under WTO terms.

wallace_and_gromit

An interesting observation from one of the Guardian comment sections: The deal that the UK negotiates to leave the EU is only subject to QMV approval from member states and approval by the European Parliament. Thus if there is general appetite for a "reasonable" trade deal on the EU side then this could be included in the exit deal and not subject to veto. And for once, QMV might work in the UK's favour as the rules per the Lisbon Treaty were derived to make it quite hard for proposals with broad support to be blocked.

Stand alone trade treaties need unanimity.

mamba80

yes your company.... thats all that matters eh?
if wto was so good, why has Canada spent 7 years trying for another deal or ttip ?

why is the UK so keen to broker deals with xyz countries?

the EU banking crisis you predicted seems to be receding too ..... early days but it pays not to be too pessimistic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37785091

just listening to that moron Gove... why are politicians so keen to tell why we voted IN or OUT ? that Q wasnt on the fuggin ballot paper.......looks to joel for the word that best describes Gove

wallace_and_gromit

mamba80 wrote:

the EU banking crisis you predicted seems to be receding too ..... early days but it pays not to be too pessimistic

It's the Italian banks that are the main concern. They will be brought down by losses on their exiting loans about which nothing can be done bar prayer and kicking of can down the road.

Deutsche is OK so long as it doesn't need to raise capital to pay its fine and the fine can be negotiated. In theory at least - the EU can usually bully the other side in negotiations but the US has the trump card in being able to withdraw banking licences.