Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why I will vote to Leave the EU - From an alternative viewpoint Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    However some members of this forum have demonstrated an inability to convey their views in a respectful manner…
    Bold type is generally seen as shouting.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King7)
    Because we are more important (financially, militarilly etc.) to the EU then say Norway, who have access but are not bound by EU law.
    This is demonstrably untrue. Of course Norway is subject to EU law, how could it have access to the single market if it did not? How can it have free movement of people other than through EU law?

    Read this article, it basically tells you how EU law is enforced through the EFTA court:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFTA_Court

    Here's an example of an EU domiciled business taking action against Norway through the EFTA court:

    Ladbrokes Ltd. v The Government of Norway, Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs and Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Ladbrokes) – Case E-3/06

    EFTA Court Report 2007, p.89
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Tell us, who is ahead of us in the queue?
    The EU. The TTIP deal between the EU and USA has essentially been under negotiation since 2009. Is that a dose of reality for you?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by typonaut)
    The EU. The TTIP deal between the EU and USA has essentially been under negotiation since 2009. Is that a dose of reality for you?
    You mean the deal that is on the brink of collapse. So are you telling me that the US is only capable of doing one trade deal at a time? Pretty sure even just very recent history shows otherwise. So your comprehensive list of groups that are going to stop negotiations are in fact accusations of incompetence?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Very few trade deals have free !movement of people, you do realise that?
    While this may be true, the options that are being presented by the LEAVE campaign are that the UK could have a relationship with the EU like Norway or Switzerland (or other members of the EEA). All of these states are in the single market, and Schengen, and all of them have free movement of people.

    You can go on as much as you like about possible trade deals with the rest of the world, but the simple fact of the matter is that trade in the entire world, without the EU, China and G8, is actually somewhat less than trade in the EU. EU trade makes up around a quarter of all global trade.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You mean the deal that is on the brink of collapse.
    Some evidence please? Even if that were true, the indication that gives is that international trade negotiations are difficult, and prone to failure. You are making a point against your own argument.

    So are you telling me that the US is only capable of doing one trade deal at a time? Pretty sure even just very recent history shows otherwise.
    Please give us a list of trade negotiations that the USA is currently involved in, or recently involved in. You merely asked who was ahead of us in the queue. I have given you that answer.

    So your comprehensive list of groups that are going to stop negotiations are in fact accusations of incompetence?
    Sorry, I am not following this line of argument.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by typonaut)
    While this may be true, the options that are being presented by the LEAVE campaign are that the UK could have a relationship with the EU like Norway or Switzerland (or other members of the EEA). All of these states are in the single market, and Schengen, and all of them have free movement of people.

    You can go on as much as you like about possible trade deals with the rest of the world, but the simple fact of the matter is that trade in the entire world, without the EU, China and G8, is actually somewhat less than trade in the EU. EU trade makes up around a quarter of all global trade.
    WTO rules don't require free movement and is cheaper than the current arrangement

    (Original post by typonaut)
    Some evidence please? Even if that were true, the indication that gives is that international trade negotiations are difficult, and prone to failure. You are making a point against your own argument.
    Trade agreements aren't difficult, agreements with the EU are difficult because instead of having one party on each side to satisfy the EU negotiators are constantly having to go back and fourth between the other party and all the member states, EU deals take the best part of a decade, bilateral agreements take a few years at most, or are you now also suggesting that it is as easy to negotiate with 28 countries in one deal as it is to negotiate with one?

    Various news sources for you
    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/05...n_9832662.html
    http://canadians.org/blog/ttip-talks...ted-later-year
    http://sputniknews.com/europe/201605...reenpeace.html
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/...a-1091088.html
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-a7016396.html
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7009896.html

    And it's not surprising that potential negotiations for a Americas wide FTA, and one across the middle east and US both failed, these big multilateral agreements take a long time and tend to fail.

    Please give us a list of trade negotiations that the USA is currently involved in, or recently involved in. You merely asked who was ahead of us in the queue. I have given you that answer.
    South Korea, Panama and Columbia, all negotiated in parallel signed in 2012
    For more cases of parallel negotiations, Australia, Chile and Singapore all in 2004. BTW, that negotiation with Singapore took 2 years give or take, Singapore EU took 7 years, again, the problems with bloc negotiations.
    Bahrain, Morocco and Oman all in 2006 and then Pru in 2007 with an agreement with the Dominican Republic and central America being signed in 2005, the Dominican Republic having only entered the negotiations in 2004.

    They just finished a few months back and signed Trans Pacific, negotiations having started in 2008 (spotting a trend, lots of nations, longer negotiation)
    And a list of 17 proposed, some active, negotiations ongoing right now (although quite a few were suspended in 2006 and never resumed, and TTIP will likely join the "suspended" pile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ade_agreements

    Sorry, I am not following this line of argument.
    You're saying the only thing stopping negotiations starting by the end of the year is TTIP, but if we suppose that hasn't been suspended at that point, what you are actually saying is that the US is only capable of one negotiation at a time (even though that is proved false above). You are saying the thing stopping negotiations until after TTIP is incompetence on the part of the US.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You mean the deal that is on the brink of collapse. So are you telling me that the US is only capable of doing one trade deal at a time? Pretty sure even just very recent history shows otherwise. So your comprehensive list of groups that are going to stop negotiations are in fact accusations of incompetence?
    If trade deals can collapse, what makes you think trade deals post Brexit won't do the same?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Maker)
    If trade deals can collapse, what makes you think trade deals post Brexit won't do the same?
    Because it's a negotiation with a single nation, not 28. Bilateral agreements tend to be more successful than multilateral ones, especially 29 party multilateral agreements and are so so much faster. It's not the first time the EU would have failed, it regularly does. Perhaps there is a reason the GDP of nations Switzerand has trade agreements with is almost 6 times that of the EU, and even when you take the EU out of the Swiss figure it's still almost 4 times that of the EU, hell, Switzerland has China, but even without China, and excluding countries where it is either signed or ready to be signed with the EU you're still looking at double.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Bold type is generally seen as shouting.
    Not really, typing in capitals is seen as shouting, whilst bold is usually to highlight key information or to (re)emphasise a point more forcibly. Imagine someone speaking strongly, but not a shout.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    WTO rules don't require free movement and is cheaper than the current arrangement
    WTO rules include the ability to add tariffs. WTO arrangements are not free trade agreements.

    Trade agreements aren't difficult, agreements with the EU are difficult because instead of having one party on each side to satisfy the EU negotiators are constantly having to go back and fourth between the other party and all the member states, EU deals take the best part of a decade, bilateral agreements take a few years at most, or are you now also suggesting that it is as easy to negotiate with 28 countries in one deal as it is to negotiate with one?
    Can I suggest to you that what the UK would need to do in short order is negotiate around 120 trade agreements? And that one of those agreements has to be with the EU.

    This is just speculation. You'll not that it also says:

    And its possible demise also throws into question the future of a separate proposed free trade deal between Canada and the European Union.
    This Canada-EU deal is one of the cornerstones of the LEAVE campaign: "if Canada can do a free trade deal with the EU then the UK can do the same".

    http://canadians.org/blog/ttip-talks...ted-later-year

    This looks like a right-wing thinktank site that, once again, seeks doom for the Canada-EU deal:

    While TTIP talks appear in trouble at this moment, it's important to maintain pressure to stop the ratification of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).


    And it's not surprising that potential negotiations for a Americas wide FTA, and one across the middle east and US both failed, these big multilateral agreements take a long time and tend to fail.
    And these are exactly the kinds of the deals the UK needs to do.

    For more cases of parallel negotiations, Australia…
    I can tell you that the trade deal with Australia was bitterly opposed by some groups and led to significant changes in Australian law (as it was bullied by the USA).

    They just finished a few months back and signed Trans Pacific, negotiations having started in 2008 (spotting a trend, lots of nations, longer negotiation)
    Some of the countries you list were part of those negotiations.

    And a list of 17 proposed, some active, negotiations ongoing right now (although quite a few were suspended in 2006 and never resumed, and TTIP will likely join the "suspended" pile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ade_agreements
    I think this indicates that we agree, international trade negotiations are difficult and prone to failure.

    You're saying the only thing stopping negotiations starting by the end of the year is TTIP, but if we suppose that hasn't been suspended at that point, what you are actually saying is that the US is only capable of one negotiation at a time (even though that is proved false above). You are saying the thing stopping negotiations until after TTIP is incompetence on the part of the US.
    I'm saying that it is fantasy to believe that these things can be settled quickly and easily.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    Not really, typing in capitals is seen as shouting, whilst bold is usually to highlight key information or to (re)emphasise a point more forcibly. Imagine someone speaking strongly, but not a shout.
    Not if it is entire blocks of text.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by typonaut)
    WTO rules include the ability to add tariffs. WTO arrangements are not free trade agreements.
    The most difficult trade agreement to make will be with the EU, because it's the EU, they'll be all salty and such a large organisation is fundamentally difficult to negotiate with in the first place whether they're salty or not, but the point remains, the WTO tariff cost of exporting to the EU is, guess what, cheaper than our buying into the Single Market

    Can I suggest to you that what the UK would need to do in short order is negotiate around 120 trade agreements? And that one of those agreements has to be with the EU.
    So where exactly does this 120 figure come from, or are we talking about the EU having about 120 FTAs with 26 countries (excluding overseas territories of members), 4 are negotiating entry into the EU, one is a candidate, one is trying to become a candidate, two not already given are in the EEA and Switzerland.

    I'm saying that it is fantasy to believe that these things can be settled quickly and easily.
    So you're saying that 2 years is slow, what does that make the EU then, taking the best part of a decade and being nowhere near complete?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    Bold type is generally seen as shouting.
    Not really, typing in capitals is seen as shouting, whilst bold is usually to highlight key information or to (re)emphasise a point more forcibly. Imagine someone speaking strongly, but not a shout.
    It's fine, let him assume that, although he clearly knows I wasn't (who would shout at a computer anyway?).

    It isn't the first accusation he made of me, without any sound logic to back it up. One of the most regrettable tactics in politics sadly, is to try to discredit someone's argument by accusing that person with unfounded and far-fetched accusations. They think it's an easy way to help ones argument but it really tells more about one's personality than the person being accused.

    This is not how one should debate and in most debating societies, that person would be forced to withdraw his comments or otherwise be asked to leave. It's a shame that some people still does it on the internet, but I'm glad that this tactic is so heavily discredited in real life.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Don't believe Project Fear -
    The UK is better off with Brexit
    Output grows 2%
    Competitiveness rises 5%
    Real disposable wages up 1.5%
    Exchange rate falls 6%
    Inflation and interest rates rise to 2-3% range
    Current account improves to -1.5% of GDP
    Unemployment reduced by 0.2% (75,000 on benefit count)
    Courtesy of http://www.economistsforbrexit.co.uk
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rover73)
    Don't believe Project Fear -
    The UK is better off with Brexit
    Output grows 2%
    Competitiveness rises 5%
    Real disposable wages up 1.5%
    Exchange rate falls 6%
    Inflation and interest rates rise to 2-3% range
    Current account improves to -1.5% of GDP
    Unemployment reduced by 0.2% (75,000 on benefit count)
    Courtesy of http://www.economistsforbrexit.co.uk
    Because of course economists for brexit are unique in the economic word of actually having accurate projections.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The most difficult trade agreement to make will be with the EU, because it's the EU, they'll be all salty and such a large organisation is fundamentally difficult to negotiate with in the first place whether they're salty or not…
    45% of our trade is with the EU, that's going to be to most important arrangement to confirm - there's no running away from that issue.

    but the point remains, the WTO tariff cost of exporting to the EU is, guess what, cheaper than our buying into the Single Market
    Please show some data to substantiate that claim.

    Here's my quick estimate that essentially proves you are wrong:

    In 2014 UK exports to the EU were GBP:229 billion. The net cost of the UK's contribution to the EU is GBP:8.5 billion (2015). If tariffs for trade into the EU were just 5% that would be a competitive cost to UK exporters of GBP:11.45 billion.

    If we then look at the reciprocal tariffs that the UK would place, then this cost would more than double (because the UK is a net importer) - ie approaching GBP:25 billion in tariff costs to UK importers and exporters.

    This thread was started by someone complaining about the democratic deficit in the EU. Now you are advocating leaving oversight of UK trade relations to the WTO - an organisation with absolutely no democratic mandate at all.

    So where exactly does this 120 figure come from, or are we talking about the EU having about 120 FTAs with 26 countries (excluding overseas territories of members), 4 are negotiating entry into the EU, one is a candidate, one is trying to become a candidate, two not already given are in the EEA and Switzerland.
    The figure has been bandied about in the media, this site claims that there are deals with at least 50 such countries (which obviously dwarfs your figure):

    https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many...s-has-eu-done/

    It's probably safe to conclude that there are multiple deals with some of these countries.

    So you're saying that 2 years is slow, what does that make the EU then, taking the best part of a decade and being nowhere near complete?
    No, I'm saying that two years is unrealistically optimistic.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    It's fine, let him assume that, although he clearly knows I wasn't (who would shout at a computer anyway?).
    Please do tell us what the point of blocks of bold text is then? It certainly is not for the purpose of highlighting individual terms.

    It isn't the first accusation he made of me, without any sound logic to back it up. One of the most regrettable tactics in politics sadly, is to try to discredit someone's argument by accusing that person with unfounded and far-fetched accusations. They think it's an easy way to help ones argument but it really tells more about one's personality than the person being accused.

    This is not how one should debate and in most debating societies, that person would be forced to withdraw his comments or otherwise be asked to leave. It's a shame that some people still does it on the internet, but I'm glad that this tactic is so heavily discredited in real life.
    Your problem is that you are unable to substantiate the claims that you have made, or your claims have been discredited by the facts readily available. No one is making "unfounded and far-fetched accusations" against you - I'm just asking you questions that you find difficult and are unable to answer.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    This is demonstrably untrue. Of course Norway is subject to EU law, how could it have access to the single market if it did not? How can it have free movement of people other than through EU law?

    Read this article, it basically tells you how EU law is enforced through the EFTA court:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFTA_Court

    Here's an example of an EU domiciled business taking action against Norway through the EFTA court:

    What i meant to say was that Norway is not bound by EU law whem it comes to certain, or its most important, parts of their access.to the single market. There are some sectors of Norway's which must follow EU law. However, Norway does retains its own agricultural and fisheries policies - key sectors to the their economy. Unlike EU states, which are bound by a common eternal trade policy, it also has its own free trade agreements with non-EU countries.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King7)
    What i meant to say was that Norway is not bound by EU law whem it comes to certain, or its most important, parts of their access.to the single market. There are some sectors of Norway's which must follow EU law. However, Norway does retains its own agricultural and fisheries policies - key sectors to the their economy. Unlike EU states, which are bound by a common eternal trade policy, it also has its own free trade agreements with non-EU countries.
    It really is not good enough to make these claims without substantiating them in some way. It is clear enough that Norway is substantially beholden to EU law, your claim on this front is obviously wrong. Even if we accept your bare claims these seem not to amount to "key sectors":

    Norwegian GDP: USD: 500 million (2013 est)

    Agriculture: 2.2%
    Industry: 45.1%
    Services: 52.7%

    25% of Norwegian exports go to the UK (so they would be in deep trouble if the UK left the EU).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway

    Fisheries: Norway does not control its fisheries exclusively, it has a reciprocal arrangement with… the EU:

    http://www.fisheries.no/resource_man.../#.VzUNPouEEcM

    So it is clear that its fisheries do fall within the scope of EU law.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.