Brexit

[jpkeates]

We were tied into the transitional terms until we agreed new terms.
Which is exactly the same as if we leave in October, other than there are no transitional terms to protect our trade with the EU in the meantime.

We still have to have exactly the same negotiation with the EU, but without the political declaration (which is a basic outline of the hoped for deal).
Which puts us in the significantly worse negotiating position.
Because we are entirely dependent on the goodwill of the other side, which is colossally stupid.

[islandgirl]

From full fact answering whether we can quit the withdrawal agreement without the EU's permission: "Only by tearing up a legally binding treaty (which is what the withdrawal agreement will be if it is agreed to by parliament and is finalised by the UK and EU)".
So if we don't like the terms they offer to "negotiate" after we sign (which we will not, because they do not want us to leave) we are stuck forever...Once that is signed there is simply no negotiation possible with any realistic chance of a decent deal for the UK. Why on earth would anyone (except the Remainer Mrs May) wish to sign that?

[jpkeates]

We have to trade with the EU.
It is our nearest neighbour and, unless someone invents a more speedy way of transporting large quantities of goods than currently exist, there is no alternative for a whole range of necessities.
Our economy is primarily based on financial services which are based around significant volumes of European transactions.

The EU is not going to agree anywhere near as good a deal as the withdrawal agreement if we have left already.
If we want to trade with the EU, we are going to have to meet its requirements for that trade.
Just the same as if we want to trade with the USA, we'll have to meet the USA's requirements for that trade.

We're much smaller than the EU (which is part of the point of the EU) and significantly worse at negotiating (manifestly).

The day after a no deal brexit, we're going to need to start talks with the EU for a trade deal.
We're going to be told it's the withdrawal deal with all of the negotiated exceptions crossed out and a bill for £39m (at least).
And, unlike today, they can just say no to anything they don't like.

[islandgirl]

well as Full Fact says "In 2017, the rest of the EU sold about £67 billion more to us in goods and services than we sold to them, according to UK data—so the UK runs a “trade deficit” with the rest of the EU." So a deal is needed on both sides. I would rather negotiate one from a position of freedom than being already tied into a deal from which I can never be released if I do not like the terms offered. That way lies madness.

[jpkeates]

I agree that a deal is needed by both sides, but that trade deficit makes us more not less vulnerable.
It just means we need a deal quicker, because goods will be subject to tariffs when traded after Brexit, so EU goods will be more expensive to buy and we buy more than we sell.

The more important figure is that the EU is our biggest single trading partner (about 47% of exports) while the UK represents about 18% of the EU's exports.
So again, operating under WTO tariffs puts us at a disadvantage.

Both of those things mean that we will (once again) be holding the weaker position in a trade negotiation.

[islandgirl]

Well once again (to avoid being accused of making things up) I refer you to Full Fact " "Trade with the EU matters a lot, but slightly less than it used to

About 44% of UK exports in goods and services went to other countries in the EU in 2017—£274 billion out of £616 billion total exports.

That share has generally been declining, since exports to other countries have increased at a faster rate."

Apparently 1 in 7 German cars are sold in the UK - don't think they will want tariffs for long after we leave!

EU goods may be (and I stress may be) after we leave but the world is a big place - we can source many of them elsewhere. What many remainers do not realize is that the goods coming into the EU pay tariffs. Once the goods are within the EU they move freely (tariffs paid). So many goods we buy already have tariffs applied. We would just apply them ourselves.

And finally the weakest of weak positions in a negotiation is to be unable to ever walk away but be bound by the terms and the whims of the opposition forever. That is true weakness. How anyone can argue that it is not is beyond me.

[theartfullodger]

Blue passports, Rat for lunch.

[islandgirl]

I love your sense of humour Artful. I prefer dog. Watch out Rover....

[Macromia]

Nothing in the actual legal agreement is temporary.

Nope, there's nothing at all in the withdrawal agreement that makes anything temporary. It's not as if it specifies an end date for the transition period (31st December 2020)...
Or makes allowances for the potential extension of the transition period for 1 or 2 years...
Or makes references to the arrangements in the withdrawal agreement potentially "being superseded by agreement(s) on the future relationship"...
Or refers to avoiding "disruption in the period during which the agreement(s) on the future relationship will be negotiated"...
Or that there is a need for the UK and the Union to "begin as soon as possible", "the formal negotiations of one or several agreements governing their future relationship with a view to ensuring that, to the extent possible, those agreements apply from the end of the transition period"...

No, nothing at all. The withdrawal agreement is clearly intended to be permanent without any possibility of anything changing afterwards if we agree to it.

There are even some clauses that state how the terms of the withdrawal agreement itself will change if the UK and EU come to agreements on certain matters before the transition period officially ends.

From full fact answering whether we can quit the withdrawal agreement without the EU's permission: "Only by tearing up a legally binding treaty (which is what the withdrawal agreement will be if it is agreed to by parliament and is finalised by the UK and EU)".
So if we don't like the terms they offer to "negotiate" after we sign (which we will not, because they do not want us to leave) we are stuck forever...Once that is signed there is simply no negotiation possible with any realistic chance of a decent deal for the UK. Why on earth would anyone (except the Remainer Mrs May) wish to sign that?

The terms of the withdrawal agreement itself are binding, while we are in the transition period, but why would you expect anything else?
The whole point of agreeing to a terms of withdrawal is that both sides know what rules/regulations will/will not apply during the transition period.
What will then apply after the transition period will depend on the agreements that are reached.

Your claims that there is no chance of the UK coming out of the EU with good terms if we sign a withdrawal agreement completely contradicts your arguments that the EU needs trade with the UK.
If the EU needs trade with the UK, especially if the EU needs the trade with the UK more than the UK needs trade with the EU (incorrect, but we'll assume that it's true), the EU would be desperate to agree a good trade deal with the UK whatever the circumstances.

The fact is (as has been said) that the EU doesn't need trade with the UK anywhere near as much as we will need to continue trading with them. They want to continue trading smoothly with the UK, and if a mutually beneficial trade deal cannot be made it will have a negative effect on some EU businesses (as well as on UK businesses and UK consumers), but it is the UK who will come off worse if no mutually beneficial trade deal can be agreed, and we will not get as good a deal as we have as members of the EU (that would hurt the EU).

Ultimately, if we are going to maintain trade with the EU, it will largely be on terms that are set by the EU - and companies that wish to export to the EU will be expected to adhere to EU rules and regulations (or have tariffs imposed).

[islandgirl]

Thank you for the detailed but ultimately pointless "educational" post. If, as you say we can get out of the withdrawal agreement I suggest an email to Full Fact who say the opposite - we can get out without the EU;s permission "Only by tearing up a legally binding treaty (which is what the withdrawal agreement will be if it is agreed to by parliament and is finalised by the UK and EU)".
As for the rest of the post, I did not way they need us more than we need them, merely that we need each other, therefore with equal partners at the table (ie the UK not having its hands tied by the ridiculous withdrawal agreement) a trade deal will follow which is beneficial to both sides.

[Macromia]

If, as you say we can get out of the withdrawal agreement I suggest an email to Full Fact who say the opposite...

I don't say that we can "get out of" the withdrawal agreement if it is ratified, and full fact agree with my position.
What I actually did was confirm that the terms of the withdrawal agreement are binding.

...we can get out without the EU;s permission "Only by tearing up a legally binding treaty (which is what the withdrawal agreement will be if it is agreed to by parliament and is finalised by the UK and EU)".

If we agree to the terms of the withdrawal agreement, we will need permission to pull out of that agreement, but the withdrawal agreement is not intended to be permanent, it is a temporary agreement intended only to be in place until a more permanent trade deal has been agreed. There is nothing in the withdrawal deal that cannot potentially be different after the transition period.

The withdrawal agreement is not a trade deal with ... - Full Facthttps://fullfact.org › europe › withdrawal-agreement-not-trade-deal

Brexit withdrawal deal and future trade deal—what's ... - Full Facthttps://fullfact.org › europe › brexit-withdrawal-deal-and-future-trade-deal...

As for the rest of the post, I did not [s]ay they need us more than we need them, merely that we need each other, therefore with equal partners at the table (ie the UK not having its hands tied by the ridiculous withdrawal agreement) a trade deal will follow which is beneficial to both sides.

The UK would not "have it's hands tied" by the withdrawal agreement, in fact, I think that we would be in a better negotiating position than if we leave without any deal in place because:
1. The government and EU could actually concentrate on negotiating a trade deal rather than having to deal with all the problems caused by leaving without transition arrangements in place.
2. Agreeing to the withdrawal agreement shows that the UK actually is prepared to negotiate and agree to deals - at present that is far from the impression that is being given. If the UK shows that it is completely unprepared to accept any compromise whatsoever, and would rather crash out with nothing in place, the only effect that this is likely to have is to lead to the EU approaching negotiations with a similar attitude.
3. The UK really does need smooth trade between the UK and the EU far more than the EU needs the same trade. If we leave with no transition arrangements in place, the UK will become even more in need of a quick deal.

[islandgirl]

Macromia you really really believe that the EU has our interests at heart and will treat us fairly even if we are trapped by the awful treaty you discuss above. I have no idea how you can believe that, but you obviously sincerely do. That anyone can say (and truly believe) that we are in a better negotiating position if we sign the withdrawal agreement is, quite simply, shocking. How anyone can think that the EU has British interests at heart I have no idea. GIven that you are of that opinion I can do nothing but urge you to keep reading and listening and eventually you will come to realize that our best interest does not lie within the EU and that they will not do what is good for us, but only for them. I am happy you feel safe within the arms of this organisation when so many of us feel quite the opposite.

[Stacker]

How joining the EU led to a big decline in UK industry

By JOHNREDWOOD | Published: JUNE 16, 2016 ( ALSO, see post 11 )

There are also crucial issues to understand about how the asymmetric single market did damage to Uk industry. When we joined the EEC, now the EU, in 1973, more barriers to trade had been pulled down in manufacturing than in services. EU rules were often such that UK industry was badly damaged by the shock of joining and the continued shock of staying in as the rules increased and tightened.

When the UK joined the EU we had a 45 million tonnes a year steel industry. Today we are battling to save an 11 million tonnes industry.

When we joined the EU we had a 400,000 tonnes a year aluminium industry. Today we have just 43,000 tonnes of capacity left.

When we joined the EU we had 20 million tonnes of cement capacity. Today we have 12 million tonnes.

Just before we joined the EEC in 1971 we had a 1 million tonnes a year fishing industry. Today we have 600,000 tonnes.

The October 2013 government “Future of Manufacturing” Report shows that between 1951 and 1973 metals output rose 3% a year. Since joining the EEC/EU it has declined by more than 6%

Between 1951 and 1973 food and drink output rose by 5.6% per year. Since joining the EEC/EU it has fallen by 1% a year.

Between 1951 and 1973 textiles output expanded at 2.6% a year. Since joining the EEC/EU it has fallen by more than 6% a year.

Whilst it may not be fair to blame all this decline on membership of the EU, as there are other factors, it nonetheless shows categorically that joining the EU and helping create the so called single market has not helped us grow and has not saved many of our industries from decline.

In some cases EU policies are the main driver of the disaster. The Common Fishing Policy is clearly the main reason for the dreadful decline of our fishing industry, as many foreign vessels were licenced to take our fish. Our energy intensive businesses were often damaged by the high energy prices required by the EU common energy policy.

The EU has prevented UK subsidy of industry under its state aids rules, but has often provided subsidised loans and grants to businesses to set up elsewhere in the EU. The UK has seen a spate of factory closures balanced by new and expanded facilities in poorer EU countries. The UK lost van production to Turkey, car capacity to Slovakia, chocolate to Poland, domestic appliances to the Netherlands and the Czech Republic and metal containers to Poland amongst others in recent years. In various cases there was an EU grant or loan involved in the new capacity.

Looking at our huge balance of payments deficit today in goods with the rest of the EU, we can see the long term impact of the EU’s damage to our manufacturing capacity.

This April’s balance of payments figures show us in heavy deficit in machinery, vehicles, electrical machinery, mineral fuels, plastics, iron and steel, wood and clothing. Last year our total goods trade deficit hit £85 billion with the rest of the EU. Between 2008 and 2015 our exports grew at 5% with the rest of the world, whilst falling with the EU.

Perhaps remain might like to answer the following questions:

• Why have we suffered industrial decline and closures with production shifting elsewhere in Europe since joining the EEC?
• Why do trade in surplus with the rest of the world but have such a huge deficit with the EU?
• Why have we ended up importing fish, electricity, steel and much else when we used to self sufficient?

P.S. We also import 50% of our food. ( That's 50% of our money leaving the U.K. for food, we can't even sustain ourselves - That's a DISASTER )
We are deeper in debt than pre 1973. AND it took 60 years to pay off world war 2 debt of 27 billion ( paid off 31st dec 2006 )
How long will it take to pay back a loan of 40 billion to the E.U. ? - 100 years ?
And that means reduced government services - lay offs - teachers sacked once more, bin collections extended to once a month ? ( remember the teachers being sacked ? as they had no money ? I do. )
Current estimates are that every single person owes £ 78,000.
When a country goes bankrupt ( research Argentina ) The money is taken out of the banks to pay the debt, and your money disappears for ever..

Still want to remain ?
.
( ALSO, see post 11 )

They used to call Britain "Treasure Island", now its all been sold off...what on earth do we own anymore?

[Macromia]

I am STILL waiting for anyone who supports leaving the EU to provide a single genuine benefit of doing so (and most demonstrate a poor understanding of how the EU actually functions, what it does, and what the purpose of negotiations to date have been).

I'd have to admit that I didn't initially understand the purpose of the withdrawal agreement, which is not the final arrangement that you seem to think it is.
We will not be trapped by anything. If there are things in the withdrawal agreement that are less favourable to the UK than to the EU (and I don't think there are) it would just be an incentive to agree a more permanent trade deal more quickly. Once a more permanent trade deal has been agreed the terms of the withdrawal agreement will cease to have effect.

What's shocking is that people believe that leaving without any form of deal somehow puts us in a good negotiating position.

What is in the best interests of both the EU and the UK is for an agreement to be reached that maintains trade on as close to the arrangements we currently have as is reasonably possible. This won't be anywhere near as favourable as many 'leavers' seem to think that we should get, because that would not be at all favourable to the EU. Many 'leavers' seem to think that we should get a deal that is as favourable regarding trade as what we have now, but which has none of the commitments of EU membership - that is clearly not a feasible outcome.

[Kape65]

I live in a leave voting area (64% I think). I guess the majority of my neighbours don't feel like things can get any worse for them than it already is so it's not about what is the most profitable option it's about being free to make our own choices.