Jezbollah
Member
The markets are bolstered, but it's very much short term dealing. Once the negotiations are kicked off expect more volatility.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The UK votes to leave the European Union |OUT2| Mayday, Mayday, I've lost an ARM
- Thread starter Hasney
- Start date
- Status
The markets are bolstered, but it's very much short term dealing. Once the negotiations are kicked off expect more volatility.
Yes and that's what we are doing. Key point is that we haven't done trade negotiations of this scale for quite a while now. We didn't need to. There's difference between having a solid base of negotiators vs having to hire a large bulk of them from elsewhere.
Nobody is (seriously) saying that other countries don't want to do trade deals with the UK.
They are saying that these are less important for other countries than an EU deal, that UK will have less negotiating power than inside the EU, and that these deals sure as hell will take more than 2 years to be made.
This concerns little countries like the US, China, Canada or India, for which EU negociations on deals or new deals is ongoing for years with no trade deal in sight.
He's probably talking about 'free trade' deals, but no-one really wants one with China at the moment (do we want cheaper steel etc?). Similarly, the type of trade we'd want with the US would be TTIP... The EU probably won't sign up to TTIP, as it's not in their interests (nor would most people in the UK want to sign up to it either).
I've got no idea why people suddenly started thinking that the solution to brexit was lots of 'free trade deals' with low-wage countries.
Careful, they are going to laugh at you. It usually begins with laughing and you being ignored, then reality settles in, then go through disbelief and anger with all sorts of weird stuff about the EU punishing the UK and some other weird stuff.
PJV3
Member
This is similar to the Cameron WW3 stuff, who is claiming something as drastic as third world status?
The future is very uncertain is about all that can be said at the moment. So far I have seen nothing from the establishment that shows they have a real grip on the situation.
Out of interest, one thing that strikes me: Do the EU themselves also need to look into making fresh trade deals with other countries in the world, since one of the things that would have been assumed on making such a deal previously would have been access to London?
iceatcs
Junior Member
Kind of agreed. It has been quite interesting fear around this thread but it seem come from very designed group although.
Anything that they would want London for access to in the first place (e.g. the financial sector) is almost certain to move to Berlin anyway.
Chittagong
Gold Member
I held a very pessimistic view post referendum as everyone but Sturgeon seemed to have lost the plot and have no plan.
I have been impressed, however, by how swiftly Tories fell in line and got a new PM and cabinet going. Not a fan of many of the nominations but it does demonstrate they have a plan of some sort now, and can agree things very quickly within the party.
So cautiously optimistic now.
Sure, but that's not strictly guaranteed
How do you see the future? When the article 50 will be triggered and what kind of deal will UK make with EU?
What kind of group?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Who has the UK as a priority depends on who that country is. We won't be a priority for, e.g., Thailand or Ecuador, because they don't do any (or only very little) trade with us. Generally speaking, the countries that will most want deals with us will be countries that export goods to us. Even for say Australia, there's other deals they will be focusing on more strongly (their current deal with India), because Australia trades with them more than they do us. We can work out who will be relatively quick to the door by looking at where our imports come from:
United States: US$66.5 billion (14.5% of total UK exports)
Germany: $46.4 billion (10.1%)
Switzerland: $32.2 billion (7%)
China: $27.4 billion (5.9%)
France: $27 billion (5.9%)
Netherlands: $26.6 billion (5.8%)
Ireland: $25.5 billion (5.5%)
Belgium: $17.8 billion (3.9%)
Spain: $13.1 billion (2.8%)
Italy: $12.9 billion (2.8%)
United Arab Emirates: $10.3 billion (2.2%)
Hong Kong: $9.6 billion (2.1%)
After these countries, the figures start getting sufficiently small relative to the economies involved that nobody is going to be knocking down our door.
Now, the first problem we have is that the bolded countries are in the EU or EFTA. The way that EU negotiating works is that all members of the EU and EFTA have a veto over any trade deals reached. That means to negotiate a deal with the EU, we can't just do what Germany or France want. We have to do what the most Anglosceptic member of the EU wants.
Consider Lithuania. About 4% of all Lithuanians live in the United Kingdom, but in terms of goods and services, Lithuania does very little trade with the United Kingdom. They really don't care about our cheese or our cars, they will simply want to ensure that we have to sign up to freedom of movement. Consider Slovenia. Slovenia has... absolutely nothing to do with the United Kingdom whatsoever. Slovenia's main goal is to ensure the continuing stability of the European Union, so that it can continue to receive the large amounts of redevelopment funding it gets. Slovenia also don't care about our cheese or our cars; they want to make sure that the deal we get is no better than something like the Norway-arrangements, because a deal better than that might prompt more countries to leave and threaten the stability of the EU. So even if Germany really wants to sort a deal with us quickly... Slovenia will be very, very happy to slow things down.
Next, negotiations take a long time anyway, even for countries that are very keen, because of the huge amount of legal and technical complexity involved. The UK, currently, has about 30 professional negotiators, because up until this point all our negotiating was outsourced to the EU. This is an an absolutely tiny amount. Even New Zealand has over 200; Canada and Australia have in the realm of 500. These are people with a high level of expertise you can't just acquire overnight. Even if we had these people (which we don't), trade negotiations take forever. Australia's deal with India has taken about eight years to get to where it is now. TTIP (the EU-US trade deal) will have probably seen about a decade of negotiation before completion.
To add to this, we can't even begin negotiating these deals until we've actually Brexited, because legally until that point we remain a member of the European Union and cannot negotiate our own trade deals. So, even at an optimistic stand point, we'll probably have to spend six or seven years trading with the rest of the EU (that entire bold bloc) at WTO rates. That would be absolutely devastating for the economy. You're taking -2.6% GDP growth for the duration of that period, which is approximately as bad as the 2008 recession but for a slightly more prolonged period of time.
My best guess is that this won't happen. No UK Prime Minister will want to be in that situation. Almost the entire economic profession would point out that stupidity of such a move.
So what is available to us? Well, what we don't want, for even a brief period of time, is to end up being "outside" any trade deals; precisely because of all the difficulties outlined above. The only way to do that *and* leave the EU is to... become a member of EFTA; which is technically speaking leaving the European Union, but keeps us both inside the European trading-bloc, which means we don't have to go through a painful period with WTO trading rates with the EU (by far our biggest export market, accounting for 46% of UK goods), and also means that we don't have to negotiate with any other countries either, because we will remain inside the EU negotiating bloc too. I would put £150 towards a charity of your choice on the UK ending up in EFTA - and consequently maintaining freedom of movement, and obeying relevant EU directives, but now with no power to do anything about them.
That's why this referendum was so unbelievably stupid. There's simply no way that the UK was ever going to leave the EU markets. We're too integrated. Look at the list of export partners above - it's almost all the EU! So all that is going to happen, is that we're going to end up where we were before, in that we'll be in EFTA, the "almost EU". And hey, that's not so bad. It'll only be moderately worse than the status quo. So, sure, the doom scenarios won't happen. But the most frustrating thing is that it's still unarguably worse than what we had now, where we had basically all the concessions existing EFTA members had, but also got to keep representatives in the European Parliament and run all sorts of European agencies and more or less run the EU's foreign policy and goodness knows what else I forgot to mention.
Frankly, if you think Brexit will be good for this country... I just really don't know what to say. I don't want to call people stupid, because there are obviously some very intelligent people who voted Brexit and supported it. I'd rather say willfully ignorant. You are ignoring the way the world works for the sake of some sort of fop to the idea that Britannia still rules the waves. She hasn't, and she's never given up more of them in a single day until now.
The Friendly Monster
Member
Probably not Berlin, unlike the UK Germany doesn't have all it's industry focused towards the capital city. Frankfurt is the German capital of finance.
Chittagong
Gold Member
Either UK and EU decide to play ball (more likely in my opinion) or UK begins an initially painful shift of its economy away from EU dependency, and becomes an even bigger tax haven and deregulation driver than it is now.
What do you consider "play ball" in terms of access to single market and free movement?
She's very much kept the lunatics close by though. They may not be running the asylum, but they have entire wings to themselves.
PJV3
Member
That is standard Tory politics, there still isn't a plan. David Davis hasn't even got an office yet. I'm not viewing this anymore from right or left, in or out, I can tell when people are making it up as they go along.
I'm sort of positive because(if Corbyn goes, even more so) I think the right have hit their high watermark and will start coming under pressure to strike a sensible deal.
The referendum has let off some steam, the country was capable of getting hyped for Blair not so long ago, so I don't buy that we live in a permanently right wing country.
Wow
lol.
Damnit. This will never stop being a hilarious image to me.
no one is saying these things. what is with the false equivalency?
Crab's post sums up our situation pretty well.
Chittagong
Gold Member
Great post Crab, too long to reply to right now in the car but wanted to acknowledge the effort
RedSparrows
Member
The Tories don't have a bloody plan, they're asembling their team to come up with one.
Again and again, decisiveness is mistaken for 'knowing what the fuck we're doing'.
Again and again, decisiveness is mistaken for 'knowing what the fuck we're doing'.
We're going to have completely rip up the statute book to replace EU legislation. We may replace it with direct analogues, or better or worse legislation but I'm not sure how anyone can close a comprehensive trade deal without knowing those parameters. Some in the civil service are talking about 4 years just to pass everything through Parliament and that's if all parties play nice.
Not sure why everyone is obsessed about trade deals. The EU isn't exactly a trade deal behemoth. From their own website;
Europe
Kosovo - Stabilisation and Association Agreement, 01 April 2016
Bosnia and Herzegovina - Stabilisation and Association Agreement, 01 June 2015
Serbia - Stabilisation and Association Agreement, 01 September 2013
Ukraine - 27 June 2014
Montenegro - Stabilisation and Association Agreement, 01 May 2010
Albania - Stabilisation and Association Agreement, 01 April 2009
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - Stabilisation and Association Agreement, 01 May 2004
Faroe Islands - 01 January 1997
Norway - 01 July 1973
Iceland - 01 April 1973
Switzerland - 01 January 1973
Mediterranean
Algeria - Association Agreement, 01 September 2005
Egypt - Association Agreement, 01 June 2004
Lebanon - Interim Agreement, 01 March 2003
Jordan - Association Agreement, 01 May 2002
Israel - Association Agreement, 01 June 2000
Morocco - Association Agreement, 01 March 2000
Tunisia - Association Agreement, 01 March 1998
Palestinian Authority - Association Agreement, 01 July 1997
Syria - Co-operation Agreement, 01 July 1977
Other
EU-Ecuador text of the trade agreement published, not yet ratified, 17 February 2015
Colombia and Peru - Trade Agreement, signed 26 July 2012
Central America - Association Agreement with a strong trade component, signed 29 June 2012
EU-Iraq - Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, signed on 11 May 2012
Papua New Guinea and Fiji - Interim Partnership Agreement ratified by Papua New Guinea in May 2011
Korea - New Generation Free Trade Agreement, signed 06 October 2010
Cameroon Economic Partnership Agreement signed in 2009
Madagascar, Mauritius, the Seychelles, and Zimbabwe Economic Partnership Agreement signed in August 2009
Chile - Association Agreement and Additional Protocol, 01 February 2003 (trade) / 01 March 2005 (full agreement)
Mexico - Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement, 01 July 2000
South Africa - Trade, Development and Co-operation Agreement, 01 January 2000
CARIFORUM States - Economic Partnership Agreement, Provisionally applied
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/agreements/index_en.htm#_europe
Most of the EU's trade is done under WTO and Most Favored Nation rules. Plus, I doubt the 27 nations will ever agree to TTIP.
We'd probably better off joining NAFTA and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Europe
Kosovo - Stabilisation and Association Agreement, 01 April 2016
Bosnia and Herzegovina - Stabilisation and Association Agreement, 01 June 2015
Serbia - Stabilisation and Association Agreement, 01 September 2013
Ukraine - 27 June 2014
Montenegro - Stabilisation and Association Agreement, 01 May 2010
Albania - Stabilisation and Association Agreement, 01 April 2009
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - Stabilisation and Association Agreement, 01 May 2004
Faroe Islands - 01 January 1997
Norway - 01 July 1973
Iceland - 01 April 1973
Switzerland - 01 January 1973
Mediterranean
Algeria - Association Agreement, 01 September 2005
Egypt - Association Agreement, 01 June 2004
Lebanon - Interim Agreement, 01 March 2003
Jordan - Association Agreement, 01 May 2002
Israel - Association Agreement, 01 June 2000
Morocco - Association Agreement, 01 March 2000
Tunisia - Association Agreement, 01 March 1998
Palestinian Authority - Association Agreement, 01 July 1997
Syria - Co-operation Agreement, 01 July 1977
Other
EU-Ecuador text of the trade agreement published, not yet ratified, 17 February 2015
Colombia and Peru - Trade Agreement, signed 26 July 2012
Central America - Association Agreement with a strong trade component, signed 29 June 2012
EU-Iraq - Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, signed on 11 May 2012
Papua New Guinea and Fiji - Interim Partnership Agreement ratified by Papua New Guinea in May 2011
Korea - New Generation Free Trade Agreement, signed 06 October 2010
Cameroon Economic Partnership Agreement signed in 2009
Madagascar, Mauritius, the Seychelles, and Zimbabwe Economic Partnership Agreement signed in August 2009
Chile - Association Agreement and Additional Protocol, 01 February 2003 (trade) / 01 March 2005 (full agreement)
Mexico - Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement, 01 July 2000
South Africa - Trade, Development and Co-operation Agreement, 01 January 2000
CARIFORUM States - Economic Partnership Agreement, Provisionally applied
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/agreements/index_en.htm#_europe
Most of the EU's trade is done under WTO and Most Favored Nation rules. Plus, I doubt the 27 nations will ever agree to TTIP.
We'd probably better off joining NAFTA and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
While a lot of people are saying that the EU is a better target for trade negotiations than the UK for countries like Chile, Brazil, Japan and China - the thing you have to remember is the UK is going to be a lot easier to negotiate with than the EU.
E.g. the US deal which has been on hold for years after being signed off because of things like Greece's dispute over cheese naming rights.
As much as the EU would like it not to be the case, when you launch a trade deal with the EU, you aren't actually doing that, you are launching it with 27 member states, all of whom have conflicting interests.
E.g. the US deal which has been on hold for years after being signed off because of things like Greece's dispute over cheese naming rights.
As much as the EU would like it not to be the case, when you launch a trade deal with the EU, you aren't actually doing that, you are launching it with 27 member states, all of whom have conflicting interests.
This sounds true, but I'm more alarmed by examples such as India - Australia. That seems more comparable to our situation than EU - US
It's hard to say now until we know where the UK stands with the EU. If we were staying in the UK, there's a couple of horrible things like letting corporations sue states in private courts and lowering food standards so the US can send their bollocks to us are pretty terrible. Ended up writing to my MEPs about exactly that.
It's a shame we won't have a day on it going forward, yet could still apply to us depending on what is sorted.
It's been bothering me for a while: Is that Lee Mack?
RedSparrows
Member
+ this entire discussion is predicated on the idea that the 'trade deals' we need and have to re/negotiate etc, and the attendant economic costs et al, was worth it, in return for an apparent 'increase' of a concept most of us barely grasp anyway and is naturally apportioned and bargained off (sovereignty) as part of all political action, individual to supra-national body, and being outside a club that might go where we don't want it to, but being on the outside isn't likely to help us in dozens of ways.
I know that's the old argument, I'm just bored of 'trade deals'.
I know that's the old argument, I'm just bored of 'trade deals'.
Nah, it's some online game commentator.
Nope. Don't know who it is but it isn't him.
Because if the UK wants to get trade conditions remotely as good with their main market (EU) as they are having now, they will NEED to have something better than WTO conditions (same from EU toward UK honestly, but the "demand" is less "pressing" in that direction).
You're forgetting the bit where the EU itself is a massive trade organisation (one to which we sell most of our exports) with an amazingly liberal services trade agreement especially in terms of financial services which is our biggest trade sector. Also that list is missing Turkey.
Good post.
My guess is they assume the world is in a state similar to prior the formation of the EU and want a do-over based upon the original EFTA? But that's kinda like not being able to compete with cars and expecting the world to still need your stables when you shut down the factories...
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
List of countries in the TPP with the percentage they comprise of our exports:
Australia 1.2%
Brunei *
Canada 1.7%
Chile *
Japan 1.4%
Malaysia *
Mexico *
New Zealand *
Peru *
Singapore 1.3%
United States 11.0%
Vietnam *
Those asterisked represent less than 0.5%. If you add them all together, they're just under 2%. That means that the TPP accounts in total for less than 18.0% of our exports.
The EU accounts for 46%.
All by itself, by a member of the EU is about two and half times as valuable as being a member of the TPP.
As far as the UK economy is concerned, there are about three markets that actually matter: the US, the EU, and China. They're about two-thirds of our exports, with the EU itself providing just under half. Everything else is small stakes; these are the only trade deals we really actually care about. 1.7% from Canada? Sure, whatever. Nice to have, but not essential - and we actually have it anyway because the EU has a very extensive trade deal with Canada. At the moment, we have the *best* trade deal with the EU - single market. No tariffs. Nothing. You can't get better than that.
We just gave that up (assuming we don't stay in EFTA, which we will, so we actually just gave up a tonne of political power and influence for no real reasons).
The Friendly Monster
Member
Not commenting on the feasibility...but the UK being part of the North American Free Trade Agreement or Trans-Pacific Partnership?
I honestly don't think that will be fully sorted during this government term. I think it'll be more judged on what measures are put in place to deal with the inevitable recession once A50 is triggered, however short or long term that will be.
If it is though, that will certainly be the case.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
yeah, I strongly agree with this. I am incredibly confident we will go the EFTA route (which is what the rest of the markets are betting on - given the stability of the major financial firms, you can see they're confident the passport will be maintained which is only possible through EFTA). That means that sooner or later, someone is going to have to explain to the British people that... freedom of movement is going to be exactly the same as it ever was.
Hopefully they get a Brexiter to do it.
That's still pretty condescending. I know we disagree, but I can at least respect the fact that I can see why people may have voted remain if issues like the economy were their biggest priority. However, for others, like me, the issues regarding sovereignty take far higher priority.
Chittagong
Gold Member
Financial passport and freedom of movement. And UK will keep most of the EU wording in legislation. UK will do extra incentives to multinationals and industry. That's pretty much where I expect this to go.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Then those people were too stupid/willfully ignorant to understand how sovereignty actually works. I'm not going to mince words here.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
yeah, basically. We'll keep freedom of movement, we'll keep our legislation tied to the EUs partially because we have to under EFTA and partially because doing anything else would be far too complicated, and the UK will cut tax rates to try and mitigate whatever other fall-outs remain, prompting more austerity.
Way to fucking go, team.
Condescending? You mean realistic.
Wow, insults. Great. I thought we were supposed to be above this. I've spent half my life studying this subject but hey, what do I know?
If the following is accurate, surely this is just another reason to stop this abuse of the disabled/ill and accept medical evidence, from medical people, i.e. doctors, as being the best/only way to decide who qualifies for disability benefits.
By Ros Wynne-Jones
A damning study by the National Audit Office has found the DWP will give £1.6billion to private contractors over the next three years to carry out controversial assessments on disabled/ill people.
Yet savings in benefits payments are likely to be less than £1bn by 2020 as a result of the new tests.
All that pain, poverty and misery for nothing, then.
By Ros Wynne-Jones
A damning study by the National Audit Office has found the DWP will give £1.6billion to private contractors over the next three years to carry out controversial assessments on disabled/ill people.
Yet savings in benefits payments are likely to be less than £1bn by 2020 as a result of the new tests.
All that pain, poverty and misery for nothing, then.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked