Brexit - in or out

[forker]

What we all need to be aware of, beyond what self serving politicians tell us is the new world order and the way trade is being conducted. Regional trade agreements are flourishing. They are popping up like mushrooms.

UK stepping out of the most advanced and idealistic trade agreement with a view to forming single bilateral agreements swiftly is wishful thinking to the point of lunacy.

YES IT CAN BE DONE but there is no certainty none what so ever. Moreover, given the number of regional blocks, making bilateral agreements will not be like those in the old days.

Here is just one random paper written in 2012. Discusses relevant interesting subject matter. Regional and Bilateral Trade Agreements.

Of particular concern is the complex nature of interlacing bilateral and regional trade agreements and the impact that this structure may have on the developing world. In recent years, bilateral and regional trade agreements have become increasingly sophisticated and they now cover a far wider remit than the multilateral trading system: for example, most bilateral and regional trade agreements address issues relating to competition and intellectual property, which are contentious issues within multilateral trade negotiations. In addition, they are becoming geographically more far reaching; many regional trade agreements are now entered into between several countries from different regions with consistent trade policy aspirations.

This suggests that regional trade agreements are increasingly being used to
strengthen political and economic partnerships rather than to simply enhance regional integration.



In a nut shell the risk factor in going it alone based on hope to crack our migrant control issue is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

That's a slight exaggeration regarding agreements popping like mushrooms.

Since we are talking numbers around the difficulty in agreeing these. Keep in mind however that hundreds already exist and therefore there isn't a rush to the gates, metaphorically. Taking into account the 2 year divorce period. Here is a link to the WTO database, and specifically a list of regional trade agreements notified to the GATT/WTO and in force

http://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicPreDefRepByEIF.aspx

You will note on many of them ( none EU included) dates of notification after which negotiations took place and then the subsequent signing of the agreement. If you are going to bull5hit people then perhaps you should check your facts first.

No offence but I am tired of talking to people about this who don't even look at the facts. The entirety of the article you point out is describing the negative impacts on the developing world. This has absolutely no relevance to the negotiations that need to take place and the time it roughly takes to complete. You throwing complexity as your argument and you don't even understand the point of the article. Just look at the agreements been notified and subsequently made active! Does that look like 10 years to you or being so complex that deals are not struck? Most of those are notified and agreed within a year!

 

[forker]

 

[Oscar Reed]

This would be bad move.

Would force traders to use over seas equity or futures markets

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...es-to-rule-out-suspending-trading-on-the-lon/

 

[counter_violent]

This might be good later today.
Andrea Leadsom shows leadership potential from what I've seen of her.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36582567

 

[counter_violent]

For anyone who hasn't made up their mind which way to vote, as a counter balance to Brexit: The Movie for the leave campaign, this is by far any away the most persuasive talk in favour of staying in that I've come across thus far: Professor Michael Dougan analyses the EU Referendum debate.
Tim.

What a surprise, he doesn't go anywhere near the immigration topic.

 

[forker]

and you think you have seen it all until this.

If Britain votes to leave the European Union, could it prompt London to demand its own exit - in this case from the United Kingdom?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36526298

the level of stupidity is off the scale

 

[forker]

Apparently George Osborne has said there is no economic plan in the event of a brexit. Just last week he was threatening a budget that includes tax rises. Is he genuinely trying to sway voters by claiming to be an idiot

 

[NickBk]

and you think you have seen it all until this.

If Britain votes to leave the European Union, could it prompt London to demand its own exit - in this case from the United Kingdom?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36526298

the level of stupidity is off the scale

I thought it was a good idea, no subsidies for those up north and their diabetes medication. Maybe build a wall too!

 

[Atilla]

That's a slight exaggeration regarding agreements popping like mushrooms.

Since we are talking numbers around the difficulty in agreeing these. Keep in mind however that hundreds already exist and therefore there isn't a rush to the gates, metaphorically. Taking into account the 2 year divorce period. Here is a link to the WTO database, and specifically a list of regional trade agreements notified to the GATT/WTO and in force

http://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicPreDefRepByEIF.aspx

You will note on many of them ( none EU included) dates of notification after which negotiations took place and then the subsequent signing of the agreement. If you are going to bull5hit people then perhaps you should check your facts first.

No offence but I am tired of talking to people about this who don't even look at the facts. The entirety of the article you point out is describing the negative impacts on the developing world. This has absolutely no relevance to the negotiations that need to take place and the time it roughly takes to complete. You throwing complexity as your argument and you don't even understand the point of the article. Just look at the agreements been notified and subsequently made active! Does that look like 10 years to you or being so complex that deals are not struck? Most of those are notified and agreed within a year!

If regional trade agreements have no bearing on bilateral trade agreements then what is stopping the UK from starting these agreements now?

I find it amazing you can argue both sides of the fence and not realise implications of your arguements?

 

[Sonicscooter]

I thought it was a good idea, no subsidies for those up north and their diabetes medication. Maybe build a wall too!

Cheeky git.........

 

[forker]

If regional trade agreements have no bearing on bilateral trade agreements then what is stopping the UK from starting these agreements now?

I find it amazing you can argue both sides of the fence and not realise implications of your arguements?

Regional and bilateral are effectively the same thing. What's stopping the UK from starting these, the EU. We are not permitted to negotiate our own trade deals. You know this but I suspect you are trying to divert your point elsewhere because you have lost this argument sir.

 

[barjon]

Today it's 1/4 remain, 3/1 leave

 

[Atilla]

Regional and bilateral are effectively the same thing. What's stopping the UK from starting these, the EU. We are not permitted to negotiate our own trade deals. You know this but I suspect you are trying to divert your point elsewhere because you have lost this argument sir.

NO! They are categorically not!

Once again you dismiss a very serious consideration to one of Brexit campaign lies. We can trade with anyone we want! No! You will not be able to without negotiating and agreeing first due consideration given to regional trading pacts.

As article before attempts to highlight which you also dismissed, bilateral and regional agreements are becoming more complex. To back your argument you use a piece of fact (which I accept) dating back to 1948 after WWII when the agreement compromised of 10bn and approx 1/3 rd of global trade when other than the US no one really had much say at all.

Reason why you are not permitted to carry out bilateral steel agreement with let's say China is because that will tilt the competitive advantage if one country in EU will have an unfair advantage over another in the purchase of cheaper inputs. So one negotiates agreement as a block. That's only fair. Same would apply if France did a deal with the Turks and bought cheap turkey's from Turkey and flooded the UK's xmas market impacting British farmers.

Just as EU applies this rule and discipline I think you'll find others will too.

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

 

[forker]

NO! They are categorically not!

Once again you dismiss a very serious consideration to one of Brexit campaign lies. We can trade with anyone we want! No! You will not be able to without negotiating and agreeing first due consideration given to regional trading pacts.

As article before attempts to highlight which you also dismissed, bilateral and regional agreements are becoming more complex. To back your argument you use a piece of fact (which I accept) dating back to 1948 after WWII when the agreement compromised of 10bn and approx 1/3 rd of global trade when other than the US no one really had much say at all.

Reason why you are not permitted to carry out bilateral steel agreement with let's say China is because that will tilt the competitive advantage if one country in EU will have an unfair advantage over another in the purchase of cheaper inputs. So one negotiates agreement as a block. That's only fair. Same would apply if France did a deal with the Turks and bought cheap turkey's from Turkey and flooded the UK's xmas market impacting British farmers.

Just as EU applies this rule and discipline I think you'll find others will too.

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

"a bilateral trade agreement is one made between two contracting parties, and a regional trade agreement is one made between two or more contracting parties that share some common denomination known conceptually as 'region'."The purpose of such agreements is to reinforce trade relations between the members"

Taken from http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199796953/obo-9780199796953-0019.xml (Oxford Bibliographies provides faculty and students alike with a seamless pathway to the most accurate and reliable resources for a variety of academic topics)

your document link here (http://www.a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements.pdf)

lets review the conclusion of that document that you have conveniently left out.

"Conclusion

Many developing countries are signing up to bilateral and regional trade agreements because
the benefits of the reciprocal arrangements are attractive and offer a much faster solution to
trade liberalisation than the "Doha" round is currently able to offer. However, the result of the
proliferation of bilateral and regional trade agreements is a complex system of overlapping
arrangements, which many people fear will have a negative impact on the developing world
because it is not equipped to deal with such a high degree of complexity.
The case study on NAFTA is an example of the complexity that can arise even as between the
three countries involved. The arrangements between the US, Mexico and Canada are not all
encapsulated within NAFTA. There are a number of side agreements in place, setting out
different systems in respect of different products depending on the political and economic
factors in each case.
Bilateral and regional trade agreements are, by their very nature, discriminatory and there is a
concern that many developing countries are signing up to arrangements that may erode over
time. The worry, therefore, is that developing countries and small corporations, which are
unable to handle this chaotic structure, will lose out in the long run. "

You sir, have taken a snippet from this document describing complexity and using that as your argument of an agreement taking a long time to agree. I have proven that this is not the case for the majority of the existing agreements using the WTO database as a reference to the notification of an agreement (date) and the subsequent signing of an agreement (becomes active). You have tried to refer to post war era being responsible for agreements taking place faster than they would today. You point out that complexity of agreements today means they cannot be agreed as quickly. here are a few examples from the WTO database (plenty more - go look for yourself). All your arguments are nothing more than assumption backed up by cherry picking. The irony is that you accuse me of cherry picking

UK stepping out of the most advanced and idealistic trade agreement with a view to forming single bilateral agreements swiftly is wishful thinking to the point of lunacy.

 

[forker]

i am done arguing with people on this subject. i will see you all on the other side either way.

 

[Atilla]

"a bilateral trade agreement is one made between two contracting parties, and a regional trade agreement is one made between two or more contracting parties that share some common denomination known conceptually as 'region'."The purpose of such agreements is to reinforce trade relations between the members"

Taken from http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199796953/obo-9780199796953-0019.xml (Oxford Bibliographies provides faculty and students alike with a seamless pathway to the most accurate and reliable resources for a variety of academic topics)

your document link here (http://www.a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements.pdf)

lets review the conclusion of that document that you have conveniently left out.

"Conclusion

Many developing countries are signing up to bilateral and regional trade agreements because
the benefits of the reciprocal arrangements are attractive and offer a much faster solution to
trade liberalisation than the "Doha" round is currently able to offer. However, the result of the
proliferation of bilateral and regional trade agreements is a complex system of overlapping
arrangements, which many people fear will have a negative impact on the developing world
because it is not equipped to deal with such a high degree of complexity.
The case study on NAFTA is an example of the complexity that can arise even as between the
three countries involved. The arrangements between the US, Mexico and Canada are not all
encapsulated within NAFTA. There are a number of side agreements in place, setting out
different systems in respect of different products depending on the political and economic
factors in each case.
Bilateral and regional trade agreements are, by their very nature, discriminatory and there is a
concern that many developing countries are signing up to arrangements that may erode over
time. The worry, therefore, is that developing countries and small corporations, which are
unable to handle this chaotic structure, will lose out in the long run. "

You sir, have taken a snippet from this document describing complexity and using that as your argument of an agreement taking a long time to agree. I have proven that this is not the case for the majority of the existing agreements using the WTO database as a reference to the notification of an agreement (date) and the subsequent signing of an agreement (becomes active). You have tried to refer to post war era being responsible for agreements taking place faster than they would today. You point out that complexity of agreements today means they cannot be agreed as quickly. here are a few examples from the WTO database (plenty more - go look for yourself). All your arguments are nothing more than assumption backed up by cherry picking. The irony is that you accuse me of cherry picking

Perhaps we are both cherry picking. I do like cherries.

However those links are add-ons to existing agreements. You do realise they are not new. They have previous GATT agreements as reference.

So you proposing new trade agreements or modifying existing ones?

 

[counter_violent]

I thought it was a good idea, no subsidies for those up north and their diabetes medication. Maybe build a wall too!

Perhaps the rest of the UK should jettison London.

 

[Splitlink]

Perhaps we are both cherry picking. I do like cherries.

However those links are add-ons to existing agreements. You do realise they are not new. They have previous GATT agreements as reference.

So you proposing new trade agreements or modifying existing ones?

Watch your teeth, mate! Some can't bite, properly, these days.

 

[Atilla]

Watch your teeth, mate! Some can't bite, properly, these days.

Well I don't know Split, as soon as a little bit of questioning what if scenarios are asked people lose patients and start throwing toys out their prams.

Accusations flying left right and centre.

As I said before the last thing that goes through a flies mind as it hits your windscreen at 70mph is it's rear.

This needs to be all carefully thought out and planned. Even the experts will find it challenging. Some have already got it figured out and say it'll be plain sailing and yes we can do better.


EU stop us from doing this and that. Numbers don't stack up. Emotions are hijacked with the migrant issue. I share these feelings. It's a question of my heart or my brain.

The statistics show that the older one is, further one is from London, the less well educated and the lower the income more likely to vote out.

Nearer one is to London, better educated and younger with higher incomes more likely to vote in.

Now these are simply segments of intention from the polled population coming from polling companies. So the numbers are what they are.

I reckon at the end of the day if everyone votes for their best interest than the country as a collective whole will be collectively better off in total, hence, country will be 'happier'. That's what counts.

It'll then be a case of getting back to the drawing board and making it happen.


Best wishes to you all

 

[NickBk]

It doesn't matter a jot what happens as the result will be the collective will of the people, including in that the non voters who were not moved either way. For me the result is the right one, not my opinion or any individuals but all of us.

No moaning or groaning it's called a democracy. Now out would be more fun for sure but who am I.