Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Herzlos wrote:


Assuming our single market equivalence nonsense allows us to make our own trade deals; any country we find it worth making a deal with will also be of interest to the EU who will want to create a deal. Given that, do you think we'll be able to get a deal as good as a trading union 10 times our size? We might be able to get a deal a bit faster (presumably by conceding on everything), but in the long run will we be able to do anything better outside the EU than within?

The argument would be that we can tailor agreements to better suit our specific strengths and interests, and have the flexibility to modify/renegotiate them in line with those priorities as events progress over time. Combined with the ability to do things quicker, those are the upsides to being outside of the EU from a trade agreement perspective. The downside is that we'll have less negotiating weight, but as a G7 economy, that really means nothing except when it comes to the EU, China, and the US. It is possible that the above advantages will still compensate for that overall even with the big 3, but it is difficult to tell on that point until we're ten years in the future.

I suppose what I'm trying to say here is that it's all very well and good to shout 'we'll have less negotiating power', but unless that power is utilised in your best interests, it's not entirely efficient. It matters little to us whether that extra power exists if it is expended upon getting lesser export rates for Swedish bolt-together furniture or additional protection for German Bratwurst, as opposed to breaks in the banking networks (just to flourish an imaginary example out of the blue).

Negotiating weight and trade power is about what you do with it, and how well you can link it into other incentives. We may well find ten years down the line that we're actually generally alright, all things considered. In fact, that is, I personally think, the overall likelihood. As ever though, just my ha'penny.

 Ketara wrote:

Herzlos wrote:


Assuming our single market equivalence nonsense allows us to make our own trade deals; any country we find it worth making a deal with will also be of interest to the EU who will want to create a deal. Given that, do you think we'll be able to get a deal as good as a trading union 10 times our size? We might be able to get a deal a bit faster (presumably by conceding on everything), but in the long run will we be able to do anything better outside the EU than within?

The argument would be that we can tailor agreements to better suit our specific strengths and interests, and have the flexibility to modify/renegotiate them in line with those priorities as events progress over time. Combined with the ability to do things quicker, those are the upsides to being outside of the EU from a trade agreement perspective. The downside is that we'll have less negotiating weight, but as a G7 economy, that really means nothing except when it comes to the EU, China, and the US. It is possible that the above advantages will still compensate for that overall even with the big 3, but it is difficult to tell on that point until we're ten years in the future.

That analysis is missing two key points.

One is obvious: "Just how different are the UK trade needs compared to the wider EU?" and the answer is an obvious "not much".

If you look at the exports treemap of the UK, France and Germany they are extremely similar.

https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/fra/
https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/
https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/deu/

Top 3 exports, all accounting for half-ish of exports are invariably these ones:
- Machinery
- Vehicles (cars, airplanes, parts, etc.)
- Chemicals

Medical equipment is also up there, so are plastic products, wine and liquor, textiles, etc. In fact most Western economies look remarkably similar with only minor glitches (for example the UK has oil, which of course Germany and France don't, and there's Gold there too, but more goes in than out so the net effect is negligible it is the actual trading process in gold that provides the UK with something)

And this is reflected in the structure of the trade agreements that the EU has struck with partners worldwide. They tend to favour machinery, vehicles, chemicals, and so and so. So the argument that EU deals do not favour UK just don't hold water.

Which leads me to the next point: "Is it worth sacrificing the power from within to go on our own?" The UK, for all the rhetoric in the leave side has been one of the leading forces in shaping up the EU trade policy.

All of the above for the most part apply to goods so what about the great British industry: Services. Why hasn't the EU done more about easing services in their trade deals? And the answer is it has. Services are the most local industry ever. There are thousands of big and tiny barriers that every country has carved for themselves to make it harder for competitors to try to get a cut of your home pie, and that's why besides the EU there isn't a single free trade agreement that includes services. None. They will ask an arm and a leg for that, because they know they will upset very influential segments of the country (bankers, lawyers, notaries, etc.)

Real case scenario: when the EU asked India for free flow of services the answer was they wanted immigration restrictions for Indian citizens to the EU lifted. Is the UK willing to go there? Considering the forces that set Brexit in motion I don't think so. Another real-case scenario. Canada allows EU companies to tender for public contracts as part of their FTA, but not the other way around, will the UK be able to pull their weight like that in a future negotiation? Again, I don't think so.

But of course that in 10 years you'll still be generally alright. The UK will still be a developed western economy, a little (relatively) poorer, a little less relevant in the world stage, but still there.

Points worth noting on this most holy of days off (it's my birthday);

- As a WTO member you benefit (read: free ride) through MFN rules from others trade agreements. You get the same tariff rates as each nation offers in its most favourable trade deals.

- A massive portion of the EU's "trade deals" are just agreements with the likes of Lichtenstein and Andorra.

- Smaller countries have an easier time with trade deals on the simple basis that they have a much narrower set of economic interests. It doesn't always work out, but basically the problem the EU has and the reason it's notorious as the most protectionist trade bloc on the planet (we have tariffs against the import of Unicycles for Gods sake) is because of the vast swathe of interests the EU has to protect. The UK has no sizable orange growing community to protect. Or grape growers. Or wine makers. Or Banana sellers. Or a myriad of other elements, which can make it easier to agree deals because you're more flexible on a broad range of terms.

This is why New Zealand has a trade deal with China (one that both parties would like to expand further) and the EU doesn't.

Are you really trying to say WTO is 'good enough'??

Seriously?

Seriously?

Really? You know better than actual economists?

Time to stop reading the Daily Mail dude.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Time to stop reading the Daily Mail dude.

Implying that someone reads the Daily Mail, now that is an insult.

You do understand that these are the rules with which we currently trade with most of the world, don't you? Or perhaps you're implying that you know more than the previous governor of the Bank of England? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/26/mervyn-king-britain-should-be-more-upbeat-about-brexit

bouncingboredom wrote:
Points worth noting on this most holy of days off (it's my birthday);

- As a WTO member you benefit (read: free ride) through MFN rules from others trade agreements. You get the same tariff rates as each nation offers in its most favourable trade deals.

It's way more complicated than that. Otherwise a single free trade deal between two countries would mean the whole world would trade without any tariff.

MFN works only for exemptions for countries under WTO rules, which are rather rare.

- A massive portion of the EU's "trade deals" are just agreements with the likes of Lichtenstein and Andorra.

Lichtenstein is in the EEA, Andorra is in the Customs union. No need for that.

- Smaller countries have an easier time with trade deals on the simple basis that they have a much narrower set of economic interests. It doesn't always work out, but basically the problem the EU has and the reason it's notorious as the most protectionist trade bloc on the planet (we have tariffs against the import of Unicycles for Gods sake) is because of the vast swathe of interests the EU has to protect. The UK has no sizable orange growing community to protect. Or grape growers. Or wine makers. Or Banana sellers. Or a myriad of other elements, which can make it easier to agree deals because you're more flexible on a broad range of terms.

It works like that if you're a literal banana republic. The UK might not have a developed agricultural sector but it's a significant producer of meat products and spirits, which still have to be protected much i the same way as grapes and wine. Which leads me to your NZ example, more of this later.

This is why New Zealand has a trade deal with China (one that both parties would like to expand further) and the EU doesn't.

Look at NZ exports:



Agricultural products, minerals.... all very primary sector. Of course it's easy for them for strike trade deals. The UK economy couldn't be any different from NZ's.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

bouncingboredom wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Time to stop reading the Daily Mail dude.

Implying that someone reads the Daily Mail, now that is an insult.

You do understand that these are the rules with which we currently trade with most of the world, don't you?

Wrong. The UK now rides on literally hundreds of sectorial agreements that go beyond pure WTO rules.

Mauritania used to be the only nation that traded on pure WTO rules until their intention to join ECOWAS, so the UK starts behind Mauritania in the trade race.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41859691

jouso wrote:
It's way more complicated than that. Otherwise a single free trade deal between two countries would mean the whole world would trade without any tariff.

No, you only get the rates that the two countries have agreed to and nobody goes 100% tariff free. It's normally just a rate reduction as opposed to a rate removal.

Lichtenstein is in the EEA, Andorra is in the Customs union. No need for that.

You understand that these are included under the list of countries that the EU presents itself as having trade deals with. So when they say "we have deals with over x number of countries", these are being included. Other top notch concluded partners include the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Palestinian Authority. Seriously, look up the list. There's a handful of what we would recognise as significant partners like Mexico and South Korea, but not many.

It works like that if you're a literal banana republic. The UK might not have a developed agricultural sector but it's a significant producer of meat products and spirits, which still have to be protected much i the same way as grapes and wine. Which leads me to your NZ example, more of this later.

No, it's a generally applicable rule. The less industries you have to protect, the more flexibility you have to work with. This is basic trade stuff.

Look at NZ exports; Agricultural products, minerals.... all very primary sector. Of course it's easy for them for strike trade deals. The UK economy couldn't be any different from NZ's.

You do understand that agricultural products are the hardest to negotiate for? So what you're in effect saying is that New Zealand - despite being a fraction of the size of just our own economy - is able to negotiate successfully in the areas considered most difficult to strike trade deals. You're not really helping your argument much to be honest.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:
Wrong. The UK now rides on literally hundreds of sectorial agreements that go beyond pure WTO rules.

Look at the map you've just posted from. It contains most of worlds largest economies. And as I pointed out, a lot of the claimed mass of agreements that the EU has are nothing of the sort.

bouncingboredom wrote:

jouso wrote:
It's way more complicated than that. Otherwise a single free trade deal between two countries would mean the whole world would trade without any tariff.

No, you only get the rates that the two countries have agreed to and nobody goes 100% tariff free. It's normally just a rate reduction as opposed to a rate removal.

Which is why there are precious little cases of that. It's basically a don't cheat deterrent.

Lichtenstein is in the EEA, Andorra is in the Customs union. No need for that.

You understand that these are included under the list of countries that the EU presents itself as having trade deals with. So when they say "we have deals with over x number of countries", these are being included. Other top notch concluded partners include the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Palestinian Authority. Seriously, look up the list. There's a handful of what we would recognise as significant partners like Mexico and South Korea, but not many.

It works like that if you're a literal banana republic. The UK might not have a developed agricultural sector but it's a significant producer of meat products and spirits, which still have to be protected much i the same way as grapes and wine. Which leads me to your NZ example, more of this later.

No, it's a generally applicable rule. The less industries you have to protect, the more flexibility you have to work with. This is basic trade stuff.

Look at NZ exports; Agricultural products, minerals.... all very primary sector. Of course it's easy for them for strike trade deals. The UK economy couldn't be any different from NZ's.

You do understand that agricultural products are the hardest to negotiate for? So what you're in effect saying is that New Zealand - despite being a fraction of the size of just our own economy - is able to negotiate successfully in the areas considered most difficult to strike trade deals. You're not really helping your argument much to be honest.

The primary sector is not the hardest to protect, it usually turns out that most economies (and especially developing ones) rely on those. NZ-China trade is simple as it gets, since China is a net importer of everything New Zealanders produce (minerals and foodstuffs) while NZ is happy to open their gates to manufactured goods from China since their industrial sector is tiny.

jouso wrote:
Wrong. The UK now rides on literally hundreds of sectorial agreements that go beyond pure WTO rules.

Look at the map you've just posted from. It contains most of worlds largest economies. And as I pointed out, a lot of the claimed mass of agreements that the EU has are nothing of the sort.

I don't think you bothered to read the text then. The US and the EU have literally hundreds of sectorial trade agreements. A FTA doesn't just come out of the blue, it is a process of aggregating sectorial agreements into one single piece of binding agreement. EU-US trade is as close as free as it gets, despite being nominally through WTO rules, because those are supplemented by thousands of pages of bilateral agreements. There's not a single country on earth that the EU trades under pure WTO rules with.

bouncingboredom wrote:

Whirlwind wrote:Not really... etc, etc

Me and Ketara were talking about a very different issue. You basically just wasted 5-10 mins of your time.

I never waste my time. I said exactly what I intended to say. You just missed the point...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:


The argument would be that we can tailor agreements to better suit our specific strengths and interests, and have the flexibility to modify/renegotiate them in line with those priorities as events progress over time. Combined with the ability to do things quicker, those are the upsides to being outside of the EU from a trade agreement perspective. The downside is that we'll have less negotiating weight, but as a G7 economy, that really means nothing except when it comes to the EU, China, and the US. It is possible that the above advantages will still compensate for that overall even with the big 3, but it is difficult to tell on that point until we're ten years in the future.

Yet that isn't what is happening. They can't point to a single country where there has been progress to even work towards a free trade deal (something the Tories are promoting).

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/fox-nodeal-ministers_uk_5a3bc79ae4b06d1621b2589c?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

The best they have managed to come up with is joining the TTP, which is the polar opposite to a dynamic flexible agreement because it would be joining something already set up and agreed. That's worse than what we have with the EU by a mile where we at least get a say as to the deal that is put forward. In anything the issue with TTP shows just how weak our bargaining position is on our own.

Cabinet reshuffle looks like a bit of a damp squib.

Us teachers have another education secretary to look forward to after Justine Greened was pushed elsewhere and decided to resign instead.

Imbecile Chris Grayling still has a job. Honestly, out of all the MPs they could pick they still rely on people like him. Why I should be surprised, we have a string of education secretaries with no background in education whatsoever, and recently an obnoxious sexist put in charge of universities.

May has to be the weakest PM in my lifetime.

https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/01/mr-bean-toy-shop-chris-grayling-s-greatest-hits?amp&__twitter_impression=true

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Us teachers have another education secretary to look forward to after Justine Greened was pushed elsewhere and decided to resign instead.

Imbecile Chris Grayling still has a job. Honestly, out of all the MPs they could pick they still rely on people like him. Why I should be surprised, we have a string of education secretaries with no background in education whatsoever, and recently an obnoxious sexist put in charge of universities.

May has to be the weakest PM in my lifetime.

https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/01/mr-bean-toy-shop-chris-grayling-s-greatest-hits?amp&__twitter_impression=true

Somehow Hunt has his jobs as well. Damaged the NHS now he gets to take a sledge hammer to social care!

Still it wasn't without the usual Tory incompetence such as tweeting the wrong person

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/patrick-mcloughlin-sacked_uk_5a5341ffe4b003133ec9bc53?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

The Vice chair for women voted against decriminalising abortion (who said DUP wouldn't have an influence on UK politics!)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/abortion-rights-campaigners-incredibly-disappointed-maria-caulfield-is-new-tory-chair-for-women_uk_5a537acee4b01e1a4b17a2ef?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

We have a Tory MP coming out as a secret Corbyn supporter

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/andrew-bridgen-accidentally-praises-jeremy-corbyn-for-absolutely-fantastic-nhs_uk_5a53895ee4b01e1a4b17c68a?utm_hp_ref=uk-news

and finally we have an MP quoted as saying that patients in an emergency can at least be found seats if no beds are available in the NHS.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/health-minister-says-most-hospitals-have-seats-for-patients-who-cant-find-a-bed_uk_5a539926e4b003133ecab138?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

I suspect they will soon start recommending slabs in morgues for those that arrive in critical condition.

I couldn’t quite believe that after his sterling work for the NHS and having just cancelled 50,000 operations, Jeremy Hunt’s responsibilities have been expanded to social care as well. The mind boggles at the responsibilities given to these incompetents.

Toby Young has quit.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Toby Young has quit.

Good, the man is an arsehole.

Greening has quit too.

Right decision, but May should have just sacked him days ago. She’s too weak relying on allies that just aren’t up to their jobs.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I couldn’t quite believe that after his sterling work for the NHS and having just cancelled 50,000 operations, Jeremy Hunt’s responsibilities have been expanded to social care as well. The mind boggles at the responsibilities given to these incompetents.

Apparently, Hunt refused to move. Justine Greening was sacked for refusing to move posts.

Surely May is done now? She can’t control her cabinet, what hope for the rest of her job?

She can't even get them to move posts... She has no control at all.

Which is deeply worrying.

If she's not running the Government, who is?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I couldn’t quite believe that after his sterling work for the NHS and having just cancelled 50,000 operations, Jeremy Hunt’s responsibilities have been expanded to social care as well. The mind boggles at the responsibilities given to these incompetents.

It makes sense from one perspective, which is that it is the crisis in social care which is ramping up the crisis in the NHS.

The BBC reported that up to 50% of hospital beds are now occupied by patients who are well enough to be discharged, but can't be bcause their local councils do not have the social care in place to accomodate them in the community.

From this angle it makes sense for one ministry to be in charge of both the NHS and the social care system, rather than social care being the responsibility of local councils.

Of course, it is the reduction of the central government grant to local councils that led to the social care crisis, and the cancelling of dozens of NHS walk-in centres that has helped stoke the A&E crisis at the front end.

The problem is that these issues have been clear for years. It requires a re-organisation of the role of local councils and the NHS in managing people through the whole patient journey (or some such management speak phrase.)

In short, Jeremy Hunt is part of the problem, and naming him responsible for social care does not create any kind of solution.

It will always baffle me that someone can be appointed a Minister with absolutely no actual experience in that area.

Doesn't matter who's formed the Government, that just strikes me as a recipe for disaster.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It will always baffle me that someone can be appointed a Minister with absolutely no actual experience in that area.

Doesn't matter who's formed the Government, that just strikes me as a recipe for disaster.

It wouldn't be so bad if MPs, especially those who cut their way to cabinet positions, weren't often also the kinds of people who will think that their "common sense" trumps the collective experience of the people actually working in the fields.

For a particularly egregious example see Professor David Nutt being fired by Alan Johnson, because apparently being an ex-postman gives you more expertise on the dangers of drugs than a professor specialising in psychology and psychopharmacology.

Michael Gove. Need I say more?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Michael Gove. Need I say more?

You have already said too much

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It will always baffle me that someone can be appointed a Minister with absolutely no actual experience in that area.

Doesn't matter who's formed the Government, that just strikes me as a recipe for disaster.

It always reminds me of Stalin era USSR, where ministerial posts had nothing to do with ability or experience, and were purely about status.

Oh I'm sure it's more than just Stalinist USSR.

Just look at some of the utter imbeciles we've had in high positions in my lifetime.

How galling must it be to be a health or education professional, and be told how to do your job by someone you know full well has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Or worse, be told you're actually getting enough money and to stop being wasteful by someone who'll happily vote themselves large pay rises year in, year out.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I couldn’t quite believe that after his sterling work for the NHS and having just cancelled 50,000 operations, Jeremy Hunt’s responsibilities have been expanded to social care as well. The mind boggles at the responsibilities given to these incompetents.

Being cynical, Hunt has an almost unique ability to be completely oblivious to the hatred he causes, so he's a good candidate to sit smugly whilst people get upset at what they are doing to social care too. As said, they are very closely linked and it's the damage to social care that's having the obvious impact on the NHS. People stuck in beds because there's no care. People admittedly with more serious conditions because there's less care.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh I'm sure it's more than just Stalinist USSR.

Just look at some of the utter imbeciles we've had in high positions in my lifetime.

How galling must it be to be a health or education professional, and be told how to do your job by someone you know full well has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Or worse, be told you're actually getting enough money and to stop being wasteful by someone who'll happily vote themselves large pay rises year in, year out.

They used to complain about this in Ancient Rome as well.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh I'm sure it's more than just Stalinist USSR.

Just look at some of the utter imbeciles we've had in high positions in my lifetime.

How galling must it be to be a health or education professional, and be told how to do your job by someone you know full well has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Or worse, be told you're actually getting enough money and to stop being wasteful by someone who'll happily vote themselves large pay rises year in, year out.

I couldn't agree more. I've always though ministers should have to pass a 101 level test to show some basic competency in a field before becoming responsible for it. If a party can't find anyone willing and capable to fill a role, it rolls over to the shadow government, then any opposition party. If you can't find any MP that can pass the test then you need to get better MPs.

Chris Grayling (Transport) is a qualified medical doctor.

This gives him a strong scientific education, but clearly his handling of cases like the East Coast franchise or the Southern Railways union dispute are nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.