Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Map of EU trade deals with the rest of the world, current and in progress.

On many occasions the Leave campaign have said that we need Brexit to make trade deals around the world, and a few fleeting mentions of this subject in the TV debates, but that's been it, so here's some info on how much we already and potentially will benefit from with our EU membership.

A map of current and pending EU trade deals around the world

More detail on the current state of play trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/118238.htm

Through the EU we've recently agreed free trade deals with Canada and South Korea, removing 99% of their import tariffs. We have trade deals agreed with most Commonwealth countries. Others are in progress, including with India, though that one is currently stalled with some outstanding issues.

A free trade agreement with Japan, the world's 3rd largest economy, is targeted for completion this year. A free trade agreement with the United States is at an advanced stage. Mercosur (the South American trade bloc) is a work in progress.

China is an important exception at present, but is a longer term ambition after the current EU-China Investment Agreement negotiations are complete.

Removing the non-tariff barriers to trade is even more important than the tariffs, and the more recent deals have greater emphasis on removing services protectionism.

It's not just quantity of trade deals that matters – it's quality. EU trade deals are far more ambitious than individual nations achieve. They take longer, are less certain to complete, though when they are completed, open up overseas markets on a faster timetable and more comprehensively. Our combined economic clout with our neighbours in the European Union gets us better deals, opening up much deeper trade access to world markets as well as increased investment opportunities.

Now if we leave, it won't by any means be straightforward to transfer these agreements and many of them won't automatically still appy to the UK outside the EU because of the terms of the agreements that mention the EU and / or its members. BBC reality check overview here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36078092

We'd need to negotiate with the EU and the other countries. That's once we've trained or hired from overseas lots of trade negotiators (we don't have any because we haven't needed them for 40 years, as Philip Hammond points out).

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 1

Aj12

Original post by Foo.mp3

Oh well then, we'd better forget about the whole concept of sovereign self-determination!

Don't do Britain down son, it's far bigger than you, and your pithy can't-do attitude :yy:

#YesWeCan

Given that all international agreements involve giving up sovereignty should't you lot be opposing all international agreements, other than very basic ones. This is before you get into membership of other international bodies that in some cases actually obligate us to go to war on behalf of others. Where exactly do you draw the line on keeping sovereignty locked up and sacred?

Reply 2

Aj12

Original post by Foo.mp3

Agreements reached by directly elected/accountable political representatives rarely result in a loss of the "authority of a state to govern itself"

As above. Really is quite simple mate

So on that basis I assume you want to see the withdrawal from NATO, the WTO, the UN and the countless treaties and international agreements that do exactly that? NATO can force us into a war, surely that is the state losing the authority to govern itself? Most basic free trade agreements will have stipulations about market access and product standards, all of which limit the activities of the state. Various agreements at the WTO regulate what tariffs can be put on goods, again limiting the actions of the state. This is before you get into the various agreements we have signed up to via the UN that govern how the UK government can treat its own population. If you take your position to a logical conclusion, that all sovereignty must be held by the state you remove all scope for international agreements on anything.

You seem to be holding an utterly untenable position here too, when you consider that legitimate, directly electable and accountable representatives negotiated the giving up of certain amounts of sovereignty. Presumably they are allowed to do this, given that we are a representative democracy and allow the government to make decisions on behalf of the populace. How do you square that circle? Are there certain things legitimate governments are not allowed to do? What are they, how are they decided and who enforces it?

Reply 3

Aj12

Original post by Foo.mp3

Nope, any loss of sovereignty in those instances is partial and clearly in the national interest e.g. common defence - we retain broad military independence but can be called into action/call others to arms, if the **** really hits the fan. It's a matter of pragmatic balance :smile:

I did say broadly, and it wasn't legitimate as it was not directly Democratically mandated. The 1973 Referendum was a fraud. Look at the way it was sold to the electorate at the time vs. true intent/insidious constitutional creep that's taken place since, and you'll find this is irrefutable

Yes. Surrender sovereignty without a clear mandate, especially in a way that is demonstrably/increasingly not in the national interest. Politicians are elected to play by the rules of the game, we contract out our sovereignty to them (social contract), not to fundamentally alter said rules without our consent, or to breach said contract

As could be said for much of the legislature made by the EU. Trade, a healthy economy and extra guarantees on certain rights are all also in the national interest.

The government regularly does things that are not directly democratically mandated. Within the British system direct mandates are not required. The government is elected and entrusted to act as it wills, within the law and a social consensus, don't like it elect someone else.

You are trying to argue there is something wrong with a government giving up national sovereignty, yet we do it on a constant basis, and have been doing it for the past 80 years. I'm not finding you convincing here that the EU is wrong, but the thousands of other agreements and membership of international bodies that all require some surrender of a government's freedom of action are completely different. Throw in the free trade agreement we will get from the EU ( that will again involve giving up national sovereignty on a similar level to Norway, leaving us in much the same position) should we leave, take into account all the other treaties we are a part of and I think you'll finding leaving barely returns more than a trickle of national sovereignty. You position is only logical if we plump for some sort of national autarky