EU 'foolish' to erect trade barriers against Britain.

Scroll to see replies

The EU does not speak with one voice. i.e. the voice of Schauble. They can't punish businesses who want to do trade with Britain without hurting themselves.

but other countries leaving hurts them more than damaging trade for themselves in one sector.

Reply 21

Good bloke

Original post by banterboy

but other countries leaving hurts them more than damaging trade for themselves in one sector.

It isn't one sector. The UK imports a net £68 billion from the EU every year. This is across all sectors. Tariffs will harm the EU more than they would Britain (as the German industrialists realise) as they will risk us accelerating the growth of our non-EU links with countries that will be only too pleased to grow their economies and take advantage.

Reply 22

banterboy

Original post by Good bloke

they're not gonna remove all that trade by putting tariffs up. We will still have to buy from them until we get good trade deals from other countries, a process that can take 7 years. As Obama said, we will be at the back of the queue when it comes to international trade. And this is assuming economies outside the UK are as good trading partners as we have; i see no reason to think that brazil is better for our types of business than Germany.

Reply 23

_Fergo

Original post by Good bloke

I din't say that. I merely said that the EU wiull get what they give. The UK is a net importer of £68 billion from the EU. If they want tariffs, let them have tariffs - they will be the net losers.

We are net exporters to non-EU countries to the tune of about £31 billion, tariffs or not. We can develop those links, agree free trade deals across the world and replace the EU imports.

The Germans seem unlikely to want to see their car exports being replaced by the Japanese.

Essentially you are indeed talking about preferential treatment. That said, cars are only one industry and cannot be used as the medium of discussion for the whole of the EU.

Nonetheless, that assumes that it will be cheaper to buy from Japan than Germany - which is not necessarily the case. It may well be that the cars from Germany become more expensive but still cheaper than Japan, in which case the end result is higher prices (not sure on the specific tariffs on trade with Japan). Transportation is also just as important - it's not cheap by any means.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 24

mariachi

Original post by ohgeez

Talk of putting up trade barriers is complete ********. It's just a scare tactic. I wouldn't vote on that basis alone.

if Britain were to the leave the EU, UK-EU trade would automatically be subject to WTO general conditions (MFN- most favoured nation treatment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_favoured_nation )

contrary to what the name would seem to imply, MFN treatment would be considerably worse than the present treatment of UK-EU trade within the EU itself, which is a customs union where no preferential treatment whatsoever, no custom duties and no quantitative limitations are allowed in trade between Member States

Reply 25

1420787

Original post by Foo.mp3

UK-EU goods account trade deficit = £120,000,000,000+ p.a. Turning their backs on this business would be political/economic suicide. Fact

Well, no. Not at all.

You can make that argument if you like, and I would disagree with it, that it would be politically or economically a bad move, but calling it a fact is just plain wrong when it's just your best prediction for what might happen.

I mean, you're intelligent enough to know that what you just said isn't a fact right?

Reply 26

Good bloke

Original post by banterboy

We already generate a trade surplus with non-EU countries of £31 billion. This is across the board, sometimes despite tariffs, sometimes in free trade deals.

This is likely to improve as these countries see an opportunity to replace EU trade. Our trade with the EU is a net deficit of £68 billion. If the EU sets up tariffs against us it will find it difficult to compete and will sell less to us. Japan and Korea will sell more cars, for instance, or, better still, make more here.

Any tariffs set against us by the EU will penalise the EU more than it penalises the UK, and will set us on an outward-facing path they will find it difficult to recover from. Is that what the EU wants?

There are plenty of advanced countries that, given an even playing field (which they often don't have at the moment) can replace what we need from the EU.

Reply 27

banterboy

Original post by Good bloke

Yes we already trade with other countries. The point is new trade deals take a lot of time, causing a lot of uncertainty in the mean time.

Meanwhile, Germany are only one vote and we sell more goods to most countries in the EU. So the interests of Germany cannot be conflated with the interests of the EU.

And the most important point is that, if we get a deal that is not worse than we had before, every other country leaves the EU. The takes are that high, so political matters will trump economic ones when it comes to negotiations.

And even if you're right, the best we can hope for is trade with europe being roughly the same. We're taking a huge risk. It's simply not worth it unless it was probable that the EU would give us an IMPROVED deal if we left, which isn't going to happen.

give this a watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kkuzj7syYFE

Reply 28

1420787

Original post by Foo.mp3

You can argue with this extremely well informed, decorated, graduate Economist you're blue in the face. Watch what happens economically in Europe. You'll see. Btw, fact = each and every one of the 28 leaders of EU nations cannot expect, categorically, not to commit political/economic suicide for their administrations/economies, if they turn their back on UK trade. The Eurozone is on the rocks, a small blip will send it spiralling

Again, that isn't a fact. You really aren't getting this. Each one of the 28 leaders can expect anything they like. Yes, by changing your wording you are getting closer to something approximating a fact without it actually being, in any way at all, a fact.

I'm not looking to discuss your argument because, as a decorated economist (note the lack of a capital 'e'), I'm sure you have good knowledge on the subject, without quite having enough to know what a fact is. The issue is, as I've already said, misusing words like fact in a debate is poor form and not admitting when you're misused a word is, for me, a sign of arrogance and intellectual dishonesty.

If you like I can explain to you why saying "you'll see" is a baseless way to establish a fact, but I've got a feeling you either know that already or wouldn't be prepared to listen.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 29

1420787

Original post by Foo.mp3

It's a fact, as outlined, and in the present circumstances, deal with it

It patently isn't a fact, as you really ought to know.

I fear for the future of an independent UK if our decorated economists don't know what a fact is... :rolleyes:

Reply 30

Good bloke

Original post by banterboy

You don't need a trade deal to trade, you know.

Our trade with Germany is higher than with any other EU country.

Reply 31

Thutmose-III

Original post by Good bloke

Not really. Do you think the Germans want the cars they currently export to the UK to be replaced by Japanese vehicles? I don't. It could even lead to major growth in the automotive industry in the UK as German imports are replaced by home-built alternatives on a wave of patriotic buying as Britain says "Up yours Delors" once again. Or perhaps "Get in the bunkers, Junckers!"

Good point about the home grown thing. Something I noticed when I moved to the UK was that unlike other Anglosphere countries like New Zealand, Australia and Canada, they don't have specific goods labelling as "Made in New Zealand" prominently displayed with exhortations to "Buy New Zealand" or "Buy Canada".

In fact, it is illegal for an EU country to engage in a programme to encourage its citizens to buy its own products. When we leave the EU we will indeed be able to say "Back in your bunker, Junckers"

Reply 32

Thutmose-III

Original post by banterboy

if we end up better than we did before the EU started, the EU will break up. It's absolutely in their interests to be punitive.

Except that Germany is not a dictatorship controlled by politicians. The people and its major industries have a huge say in it and any German government that chooses to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of German jobs to spite the British will be toppled very quickly.

As for the dilemma they're in; **** 'em. They led themselves to this juncture by arrogantly refusing to give any substantive deal to Cameron. If he'd come away with a reasonable deal I would have voted Remain.

Reply 33

Thutmose-III

Original post by banterboy

but other countries leaving hurts them more than damaging trade for themselves in one sector.

If other countries can get similar good deals then it doesn't hurt business at all. We just sign a new deal and keep trading.

Reply 34

Thutmose-III

Original post by banterboy

they're not gonna remove all that trade by putting tariffs up. We will still have to buy from them until we get good trade deals from other countries

You do realise that you can buy goods from a country without a trade deal? In any case, Japan and South Korea will be very keen to do deals with us hoping to pick up any slack left by Europe cutting off its own nose to spite its face. In fact, all the countries that have any nous and intelligence will be very quick to fill the gap. As if they will pass up the opportunity to do so simply because it will piss the Europeans off

a process that can take 7 years

Nope. Australia signed free trade deals with China, Japan and South Korea pretty simultaneously after about 18 months of substantive negotiations.

As Obama said, we will be at the back of the queue when it comes to international trade

A ridiculous and quite simply false threat from a lame duck president.

Reply 35

1420787

Original post by Foo.mp3

If we extend your puerile, un-pragmatic, 'logic' then it's not a fact that tomorrow is another day, sport. Join us in the real world :smile:

Slippery slope fallacy. Where do you want to draw the line at what is a fact and what isn't? Perhaps if something has a greater than 50-50 chance we should just quit beating around the bush and call it a fact?

Your amateur political predictions don't carry the same weight of certainty as tomorrow being another day, and if you needed me to tell you that then I refer you to my previous post on the future of an independent UK.