Theresa May poised for SHOWDOWN as she reveals Plan B to save Brexit.

PLEASE let her get it right this time - it's getting seriously embarrassing. Even the Blessed Margaret when she said 'We are a grandmother.' wasn't this deluded.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1075298/brexit-news-deal-vote-theresa-may-plan-b-statement

 

I rarely agree with you cerberus, but in this case I do.

She hasn't even attempted to polish this particular tee-ewe-ar-dee. My only conclusion is that she is attempting to run down the clock to ensure that there is a "successful" no deal Brexit.

 

I can't think why - you know I'm always right; or you should do by now. BTW what tee-ewe-ar-dee?

 

Paging doctors Dunning and Kruger..........paging doctors Dunning and Kruger.........

Oh, do try harder, sound it out.

 

I did, and came up with TURD but couldn't make it relate to anything.

 

The deal that Theresa May is presenting to parliament was declared as such by parliament when they voted 432 - 202 to rejected.

She appears to be presenting the same deal again, without attempting to spruce it up at all.

 

Yes, they're saying that deal B is a replica of deal A.

 

"Theresa May poised for SHOWDOWN as she reveals Plan B to save Brexit."

I think it may be too late for "Plan B" for Brexit

 

time for them to re-vote if the people even really want Brexit, my guess is most do not - they voted for Brexit in the same way we voted for Trump, most did not bother voting as they though it would never win

 

Have the EU27 agreed to an alternative agreement that she can propose?
I'm thinking.......errrmmmm....no

Hard out fine by me.

 

I tend to disagree, the turnout was well over 70% and there was a small, but clear, majority in favour of Brexit. The problem is that the 52% is a loose coalition of disparate, often mutually exclusive, views and interests including, but not limited to:

• Those who want a return to Empire and brown faces sent home to where they belong
• Those who want out of the EU and treat the EU like any other trading bloc
• Those who want out of the EU but to stay in the EEA and/or customs union
• Those who want out of the corporatist EU so we can establish a proper socialist utopia here in the UK
• Those who have been hurt by the new economy and by austerity and wanted to give the government a bloody nose
• Those who just wanted another £350m a week for the NHS

Which is a major reason we are where we are. Once the Leave vote was successful, no one group could secure a majority, or even a significant minority support for their preferred course of action. With the boot on the other foot, so to speak, the Labour Party would have been just as soundly beaten in the Commons - even if they had managed to secure the magical deal they were chasing (customs union membership together with the ability to adopt terms with other countries contrary to that).

 

The EU has put a number of "deals" on the table including:

• EEA membership if the UK will agree, among other things, to the four freedoms
• Customs Union membership if the UK will abide to the terms of a customs union
• The May deal

The trouble is that the UK wants its cake and to eat it - all the benefits of EU membership without being a member or being bound by the rules of membership.

Then I hope you're not a public sector employee, a private sector employee in a business that relies on trade with or has a supply chain involving the EU, a retiree who relies substantially on the state pension and/or market based savings, a farmer - you're going to find it hard.

 

Yes, IMO a no-deal Brexit is inevitable and Theresa May's actions over the last few weeks have been tailored to ensure that if her deal is not accepted then we will end up with a no-deal.

 

for ever....no....I doubt it very much.
The issues you raise are not that much of a problem in so far as they can be managed.
As for the scares about pensioners, I assume you think that they will have problems buying basics like food? Anyway how much do you think HMCR will raise from EU imported goods? Don't you think that manufacturers will also seek alternative suppliers at market price? Also even if we didn't then UK WTO tariffs would apply and assuming be don't negotiate a preferential agreement with the EU over time then after, I think its about 2 years dependent upon quotas etc. you would see an overall increase in the worst case of around 3% but that's dependent upon commodity spot prices for one thing! Don't forget those goods imported produce revenue for HMRC so a possible quid pro quo is an increase in the pension based upon the increase in tax revenue - pensions are normally inflation proof as I seem to recall or at least up to maximum of 2.5% annually? Anyway we'll see what happens...but my advise is....don't panic!!

 

Experts tend to disagree with you. Very few Brexiteers are in favour of a no-deal Brexit because of the negative repercussions.

No, I don't think there will be problems buying food. There may be short-term localised shortages of a few things but it'll be no worse than normal life in a small North Eastern town in the 1970s. I may not be able to get fresh lettuce or tomatoes 365 days a year, but there'll be plenty of root vegetables.

There will be problems for industry which relies on pan-European just-in-time supply chains but they too will largely self correct over time. Companies which can switch production to the EU will do so.

The problem is that the money will be coming out of the pockets of the UK consumer. The increased costs won't be borne by EU governments or foreign suppliers, the costs will fall on the UK consumer. I will in effect be a sales tax rise with all that means:

• It takes money out of the productive economy
• It reduces people's standard of living
• It disproportionately falls on the less well off

They may seek, but they're not guaranteed to find. Manufacturers and retailers are continually reviewing their supply contracts. Those with EU companies represent the best price/value they could find.

The issue for pensioners isn't so much the effect on prices, though there will be inflationary pressures (on fuel in particular if the pound stays weak against the dollar) but rather that the sluggish growth which is likely to be the result of more difficult trading conditions with the EU will place the "triple lock" (pensions rising by the greatest of inflation, average earning, or 2.5% ) under increasing pressure. Likewise, it's being forecast that the NHS will come under increasing pressure as the young and healthy EU workers no longer come across in such numbers meaning that the ageing UK population will be fighting for a shrinking pool of resources.

 

huh....why not I can get them from Tesco or Sainsbury's or wherever... fresh fruit from Argentina or the US or Chile...where do you live, the Moon?? Its all there? Do oranges or bananas come from the EU...I just bought a banana for my lunch it came from Chile!! Under the WTO Chile Preferential Agreement this will not affect my banana consumption....

 

At the moment, a large proportion of our fresh fruit and veg come from the EU, and much of the rest of it comes in from countries with whom we have trade agreements (free or otherwise) - which necessarily are a result of our EU membership - your Chilean banana would presumably have come into the country on the basis of the EU/Chile free trade agreement (though I admit to knowing nothing about that agreement in particular, or bananas in general):

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/chile/index_en.htm

In the event of a no-deal Brexit we'll need to negotiate those terms pretty quickly or else run the risk of produce sitting, awaiting customs inspection.

 

UK is adopting EU WTO agreements

 

Who knows what the UK is adopting ?

Liam Fox is attempting to roll over existing EU trade relationships. So far Australia has appeared to be relatively enthusiastic, but other countries currently appear to not be so.

In the event that there is a no-deal Brexit then the understanding is that the UK will have to revert to WTO terms globally - an unprecedented step for a large economy. In this case, the UK would have to grant the same access to everyone to the UK market. There has been some discussion about whether the UK could choose to deal with some countries on more favourable terms and this could be a short-term expedient which could work until another country brought a grievance and it was upheld by the WTO. It wouldn't be the most auspicious start for a country making its way anew in the world, to have annoyed a bunch of countries and acquired a negative WTO judgement.

The BBC has provided a handy summary of elements of this as it pertains to the UK/EU border in Ireland.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-46892372

....and something more general about WTO rules and the UK

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45112872

 

Why? All countries that are WTO members have tariff schedules and quotas etc. some high some low some at nil, then you have the various bi-lateral agreements etc. etc. I don't understand this? The way they are calculated and applied is mind boggling though!

There are all sorts of bi-lateral agreements within the MFN tariffs disputes occur all the time but some long as the MFN tarrff is not breach and the bi-lateral agreements don't exceed the MFN then I think...I think there should be no issues? I'm not a trade lawyer so take that as you will.

Agreed but they generally take years to negotiate their way through the byzantine mechanisms of the WTO

Again I don't think this WTO thing is such a big deal.

 

There's a huge difference between being a WTO member (pretty much every country is) and operating on WTO terms (no major country does).

In the former case, you're can enter into all kinds of bilateral or multilateral trade deals - free or otherwise - and in the event of a dispute one, both or many parties can call on the WTO for a judgement. This is where the tariff schedules and so on come into play.

In the latter case, you have no trade deals and instead must treat all countries equally. If the UK wants tariff free trade in Northern Ireland then it has to offer the same terms to all other countries.

In the event of operating on WTO terms, bilateral agreements don't come into it. The UK would have to offer the same access to all countries - which is why no major country operates on WTO terms

I think that's because you're conflating WTO membership with operating exclusively on WTO terms. The former is quite usual, the latter is pretty much unprecedented.

Here's a summary:

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/what-would-trading-on-wto-terms-mean-2/

 

all of which seems to predicated on there existing some form of unilateral EU/UK (without reference to WTO partner nations) political agreement encompassing a politically led trade clause, and this leads me to believe that to have a political agreement (which May is proposing) with the EU (that encompasses a politically motivated trade negotiation with a division of EU/UK quotas bundled therein for example) is a bad thing. Access to markets be they EU or otherwise should be a separate discussion and with reference to the MFN status of other nations within the WTO scheme.

 

Once again, I think you have misunderstood what "operating on WTO terms" means. It means that we have no bilateral or multilateral trade agreements - because the day after a no-deal Brexit, that will be the situation - and so, until we get some bilateral and multilateral trade agreements in place, we will operate on the default WTO terms. We'd be the only major economy ever to have attempted it.

 

Mate...trust me....that's entirely possible...

what are these "default" WTO terms - each country declares its own tariffs and quotas which is why the UK is adopting the same as the EU? I can understand why the UK is doing this as it could smooth the way within the political arena, however, I assume that certain countries like the US would not neccesarily agree with that option especially with the customs union which is mostly political and those that want greater penetration into the UK markets because of the quota schemes. For example New Zealand I assume would not be too happy having quotas split between the EU and UK as I assume they would want an increase in their penetration of the UK market for their lamb without having to pay more tax on their imports within both the EU and the UK? If the total quota for lamb remains the same but pro-rated between the two unions they have effectively become liable to tax at the same level of imports if they import the same quantity to both trade blocs (I could be wrong as I don't know how it's split between the UK and the rest of the EU) but anyway I think its a valid consideration. Similarly this customs union (although borders are outside the WTO remit) with Ireland is likely to have consequences with other trade partners as they would be at a disadvantage over the EU....I can see the arguments on both side but for me I would not be interested in establishing a customs union with Ireland if it prevents the negotiations with other nations for access on an equal basis to our markets and of course vise versa. The issue with the customs union, however, is relevant on a political level as May's Government survives only with the tacit approval of the bloody Irish! Truth be told we wouldn't be in this bollocks up if May hadn't called the general election.

Anyway, I'm not yet convinced of the long term effects of a "no-deal" because I think once all the political garbage has died down those that have level heads will be able to negotiate, under WTO auspices, a preferential agreement that is both workable not only for us and the EU but our other new trade agreement partners as well....and I think this will encompass the various MRAs as well. Take the example of New Zealand, we have already concluded the MRA with them on the same basis as the EU, and one would assume that since we share common conformity assessment procedures that an agreement can be reached under within each blocs' (UK/EU) conformity assessment bodies or authorities. I think we were discussing cars earlier - anyway one of the concerns was automotive parts being stopped at customs, however, since the UK is already a signatory to a whole raft of EU regulatory requirements (EC Directives) on the relevant testing and conformity of production procedures etc. these will still remain valid for UK; they being maintained by the various ISO conformity standards and in accordance with EC directives, one would hope that there is no reason to unreasonably withhold movement of parts through EU/UK border checks.

I think what I'm struggling to think through is the fact that although there may be no trade agreement in place there is still a commonality in product safety and manufacturing standards which means that we already comply with all the EC directives to do with the conformity standards; which for the likes of China, the US and New Zealand for example who may not have a full trade agreement with the EU they have agreed to an MRA on certain lines of products which the EU regard as directive compliant and freely imported on that basis. New Zealand can import car parts into the EU on a freedom basis under their MRA with the EU - I guess there is no reason that we will not have the same agreement considering that we are a prime producer for EU companies and a large market for their products.

anyway have a nice day mate

 

No, there are some standard terms which are applied by default in the event that there are no bilateral or multilateral agreements. If memory serves, for example it's 10% on cars and 30% on dairy products.

On day 1 in a post-no-deal Brexit, the UK would be on those terms in dealing with everyone.

The UK could then unilaterally change its own import tariffs but

• They would have to apply to all countries
• Those countries do not have to reciprocate

So we could drop our import tariffs on dairy products to, say 10% but those would apply to all countries and they could still apply 30% tariffs on imports of UK dairy products.

Discussions about splitting quotas and so forth only apply if there isn't a no deal Brexit.

Yes, all of this is possible years (or even decades) down the line when the various trade agreements between the UK and other trading partners have been concluded and ratified but in the meantime we're on WTO default terms

We will be conformant on day 1 at midnight but thereafter divergence can start.

Again, you're describing a situation in which New Zealand is piggybacking on existing EU regulations and relationships. In the event of a no deal, this is impossible.