BREXIT Discussion, v4.0: The Back-Pedaling

[snakedafunky]

Why? Just keep the trade open. It benefits everyone - now the EU has to pay tariffs and vice versa when that is completely avoidable.

I am not sure if you are serious about the issue? You seem to go out of your way not to understand the trade and free movement of people thing.
If you are not part of the EU you cant get the benefits of the EU. It is very easy to understand IMO.
The more concession you make to the EU the better trade deal you will get. The smaller your market is the worse is your position in negotiations. And with the UK you will also have political things to consider not just tariffs. You basically have a competitor right next to the EU. The EU wants to push products and service from member states not from the UK.
The EU wants to protect it own countries so imposing tariffs on UK products to do so sounds like a good idea.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I am not sure if you are serious about the issue? You seem to go out of your way not to understand the trade and free movement of people thing.
If you are not part of the EU you cant get the benefits of the EU. It is very easy to understand IMO.
The more concession you make to the EU the better trade deal you will get. The smaller your market is the worse is your position in negotiations. And with the UK you will also have political things to consider not just tariffs. You basically have a competitor right next to the EU. The EU wants to push products and service from member states not from the UK.
The EU wants to protect it own countries so imposing tariffs on UK products to do so sounds like a good idea.

Thats not true -- you have a Free trade deal without movement with Canada. Canada imports 62 billion from the entire EU. The UK imports 105 billion from Germany alone. So, your small market comparison falls short.

You seem to go out of your way to ignore the tariffs are all about spite and to preserve this asisine concept of borderless societies.

 

[WhitebeltXL]

Thats not true -- you have a Free trade deal without movement with Canada.

Free movement will come later.

Merkel's new friends have got to go somewhere, why not the welcoming arms of Justin Trudeau

 

[snakedafunky]

Thats not true -- you have a Free trade deal without movement with Canada.

Yes but they did like what negotiated it for 10 years? It is also a completely different situation because Canada is not located in Europe and is not a former member state.
Canada was in a completely different position to negotiate.
For example a car manufacturer from Japan would not consider building a plant in Canada to export to the EU. But they would consider building it in the UK. It is a completely different situation.
So of course the EU would want a system that encouraged companies to invest in EU member states.

 

[Rod1]

Thats not true -- you have a Free trade deal without movement with Canada.

There is no free movement of capital or free movement of services in NAFTA.

 

[panamaican]

Again, you have a free trade deal with Canada without free movement of people. Fuck that pillar -- its useless. The real foundation is money -- and even though the UK needs the EU more, its still 80 million people who takes it more than it trades out -- so, why not just keep it tariff free. This incredibly odd sticking point of free movement of people is such footling thing to establish tariffs over.

Yeah, why not anyone? Have a Euro wide referendum on whether or not they will keep free trade while still having the option of opting out of free movement

You making a very bad analogy. We have free movement for goods and people within the United States. We only have free movement of goods with Canada.

However trade with Canada comes with far more regulatory burdens than trade between 2 states and that means more costs. It is more expensive to trade with Canada than it is to trade within the states. That's because we have rules and regulations covering the international trade of goods than don't apply to the interstate trade of goods.

You're discussng the international trade of goods between the US and non-US nations without comparing it to the cost of interstate trade between states that are sharing both goods and people.

If a state left the USA, they would have to negotiate a trade deal with the U.S and that trade deal would include regulatory burdens that don't exist within intra-state trade. The U.S. couldn't give the leaving state the same freedom of trade because the leaving state wouldn't be subject to all of the other normal U.S. state level commerce laws.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Yes but they did like what negotiated it for 10 years? It is also a completely different situation because Canada is not located in Europe and is not a former member state.
Canada was in a completely different position to negotiate.
For example a car manufacturer from Japan would not consider building a plant in Canada to export to the EU. But they would consider building it in the UK. It is a completely different situation.
So of course the EU would want a system that encouraged companies to invest in EU member states.

Canada imports about 62 billion from the entire EU -- the UK does 105 billion from Germany alone. 50 something from France; 45 from the Netherlands - 19% of Norway's trade goes to the UK -- all of these major EU states are going to want to keep that from being introduced to tariffs.

It comes down to spite and to prevent other countries from realizing they can do this too.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

You making a very bad analogy. We have free movement for goods and people within the United States. We only have free movement of goods with Canada.

However trade with Canada comes with far more regulatory burdens than trade between 2 states and that means more costs. It is more expensive to trade with Canada than it is to trade within the states. That's because we have rules and regulations covering the international trade of goods than don't apply to the interstate trade of goods.

You're discussng the international trade of goods between the US and non-US nations without comparing it to the cost of interstate trade between states that are sharing both goods and people.

If a state left the USA, they would have to negotiate a trade deal with the U.S and that trade deal would include regulatory burdens that don't exist within intra-state trade. The U.S. couldn't give the leaving state the same freedom of trade because the leaving state wouldn't be subject to all of the other normal U.S. state level commerce laws.

The US is an actual country, the EU is not. So i dont see why you would apply it to this?

Each member of the EU is a sovereign nation -- a NAFTA trade deal would work with a EEA -- the only thing they would have to omit is free movement of people. It a simple omission; similar frame work exists.

 

[snakedafunky]

It comes down to spite and to prevent other countries from realizing they can do this too.

It is not spite it is protecting EU member states. The EU wants to promote EU products and services. Therefore it is more expensive for countries outside the EU to make trade with the EU than it is for EU member states. That is why you are part of a Union to work together. You seem to go out of your way trying not to understand how a political Union or international trade works.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

There is no free movement of capital or free movement of services in NAFTA.

Sure there is, consultants can operate between the US and Canada without a tariff. That is a service.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

It is not spite it is protecting EU member states. The EU wants to promote EU products and services. Therefore it is more expensive for countries outside the EU to make trade with the EU than it is for EU member states. That is why you are part of a Union to work together. You seem to go out of your way trying not to understand how a political Union or international trade works.

You literally have free free trade with Canada - so i have no idea what this more expensive for outside states rhetoric stems from.

Canada - a country that does a a fraction of the trade the UK does, not a member state and it gets free trade. Why cant the same rules apply to the UK without certain regulation? Japan cant get free trade if they open shop in the UK.

You are going to have businesses in your most important states clamouring for no tariffs with the UK

Im not talking about a political union, im talking about an economic free trade deal -- one you already have in place with a non member -- one that really benefits everyone. Germany is going to be ok with losing out on a portion of 106 billion a year? France?

 

[Gervinho]

Again, you have a free trade deal with Canada without free movement of people. Fuck that pillar -- its useless. The real foundation is money -- and even though the UK needs the EU more, its still 80 million people who takes it more than it trades out -- so, why not just keep it tariff free. This incredibly odd sticking point of free movement of people is such footling thing to establish tariffs over.

Yeah, why not anyone? Have a Euro wide referendum on whether or not they will keep free trade while still having the option of opting out of free movement

The EU was built to make Europe one....thats the goal. Free movement is whats needed to become one. America and Canada never wanted to become one. So again it may look a minor thing from the outside, but the people who built the EU this was the main thing.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

The EU was built to make Europe one....thats the goal. Free movement is whats needed to become one. America and Canada never wanted to become one. So again it may look a minor thing from the outside, but the people who built the EU this was the main thing.

Then why do you have free trade with Canada? Why not extend the same framework to the UK? Its not like its a new concept.

 

[Rod1]

The EU was built to make Europe one....thats the goal. Free movement is whats needed to become one. America and Canada never wanted to become one. So again it may look a minor thing from the outside, but the people who built the EU this was the main thing.

Canada and the US are also huge,each has more than twice the whole geographical area of the EU.

 

[Gervinho]

Then why do you have free trade with Canada? Why not extend the same framework to the UK? Its not like its a new concept.

Im not American....I live in UK. The distance makes it harder.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Im not American....I live in UK. The distance makes it harder.

I meant why does the EU have free trade with Canada if free trade is based on the pillar of free movement of people.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Canada and the US are also huge,each has more than twice the whole geographical area of the EU.

does that make a difference -- population wise they would about 150 million people smaller than the EU- Also, about 75% of canada lives within 100 miles of the border.

 

[WhitebeltXL]

Then why do you have free trade with Canada? Why not extend the same framework to the UK? Its not like its a new concept.

Because they're gonna make the UK suffer for daring to leave. Some countries are even behind blocking the Canada deal so that the UK don't get any bright ideas about free trade without free movement.

 

[Factory]

What makes you think the EU is failing? Most of the financial turmoil seems to be because of the financial crisis and its also mostly behind us. It's not that countries were in trouble because of the EU or the EU regulation but because of the US and the lack of banking regulations in the US.
If you look at eastern Europe those countries really profit from the EU now. It is starting to look like a success.

Germany is in the best shapes it has been in since the 1960's. As long as Germany is going strong the Eu is going strong. And at this point there is no sign that Germany is going to slow down. All of the predictions for the future look very good. Probably because Germany has somehow finished their reunification which cause a lot of financial trouble in the 90's and 00's years.

Not saying the EU shouldn't chance a few things. But to saying the EU is failing is not correct IMO. It seems to be something people in the UK try to tell themselves.

Why do I think so? I honestly don't even know where to begin.

If I would have to sum it up: The EU couldn't fulfill their promise of prosperity and this is definitely not only because of the bank crisis. The reasons are much deeper. And it's not only one reason, it's a chain of many, many factors.

Wrong Currency
It begins with the obvious and ugly truth of a wrong currency. The funny thing is, that countries who denied the Euro like Poland etc. are doing much better like Italy, Greece etc.
This is the first thing we should notice. You can't introduce a completely new common currency for all countries, because they are too different regarding economic expansion, GDP etc.

If you would like to do this, this should probably be the last, but not the first step.

The economical situation
I am sorry to say this, but the entire south is fucked up. Mass unemployment and no perspective for young people in an extent, which we hadn't seen for a long time.

The EU lost their people. There is a reason for the rise of new right wing parties. This is also a part of democracy - you messed up? Well, you will probably be deselected and this is what is happening right now. Step by step, even in Sweden...

Lets be honest, the EU in its current form is only alive because of massive propaganda and many lies. The people feel that something went very, very wrong.

Seen in a sober light - Both, the political and economical developments failed clearly.

Refugee crisis and Turkey deal
I honestly believe that this will finish the EU finally. It will give us the rest. Safety aspect, cultural conflicts, left and right even more divided etc.
This point is getting more and more important every day, but I don't even want to start with that. I have to read about this shit every day and it makes me too sick to talk about it right now.

Other very successful non EU examples
The people are not blind and not so stupid like politicians would like them to be. They see how well countries are doing, who aren't even in the EU like Norway, Swiss etc. Our media claims that these are "exceptions" and it will not work for UK etc.
Sorry, but I don't believe that.

Germany, the center of Europe
The only thing which got better is the situation of the companies and good looking numbers on paper in this country. The economy is strong, but the normal earner doesn't feel this. Germany is turning into a low-wage country. The rich become richer and richer, and the poor become poorer and poorer.

Germany were like Swiss one day and instead of defending this state of being, they are turing into China. Of course it will not happen tomorrow, but slowly.

Lets not forget one thing, Germans have money, because they are working like crazy for it.
They finance the half EU. It's just a question of time, when this system will collapse. We need a solid solution for all European countries.

I mean c'mon, an economical concept which relies mainly on one state will fail badly. This is common sense.

More points
- Bureaucracy: a huge, way too expensive and inefficient EU parliament
- Less and less democracy, more autocracy. Honest question, can you even rule so many nations in a democratic and liberal way or is this only possible with centralization and autocracy?
- Business deals: But not for the benefit of the people. TTIP etc. And btw. again against the will of the people
- Media balance got destroyed. I don't see a single right mainstream paper or show. Only left not objective positions every day, over and over again.
etc.

 

[panamaican]

The cost is just for spite because whatever powers at be want to prevent other countries from following suit. Seriously hope Germany and France follow suit and then the rest of the EU will be begging for uninhibited free trade while setting up strong borders.

Hardly. You're ignore that there is an actual cost reduction that comes with the free movement of people.

When you hire someone from a foreign nation it costs you money. Visas, regulatory requirements, etc. That cost gets passed on to consumers and drives up the cost of doing business in a nation. The more restrictions on hiring non-citizens the more expensive it becomes to operate in that nation.

If the UK is going to shut EU citizens out of their job market, why should they get free access to EU consumer market relative to a nation that grants EU citizens access to its local job market as well?

There's no reason that an EU nation would grant a non-EU nation access to its consumer market in identical form as an EU nation yet turn around and say that the non-EU nation can restrict access to job markets when a non-EU nation can't. If they do then what exactly is the benefit of joining the EU if non-EU nations can have unfettered trade but impose one-sided labor restrictions? Why should the non-EU nation have more flexibility than the EU nation?