BREXIT Discussion, v4.0: The Back-Pedaling

[snakedafunky]

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

Because Canada and the UK are two different cases. And it took a long time to negotiate. And most important they do not have full access to the single market.
You cant use the CETA as an example for a Brexit Deal.
Now as an example the finance industry. The EU and Canada are not in competition to be the financial center of Europe because Canada is not located in Europe. It would be a completely different thing with the UK. The EU would only agree to a trade deal that made sure the financial center from Europe will be moved to Frankfurt.
Same with car manufacturers sure we will make some kind of deal. But the deal will be based on trying to move car manufacturers from the UK to the EU. We dont have that same realitonship with Canda that we have with the UK.

 

[Rod1]

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.

I think it does makes a difference because its more likely for small business to have international branches in the EU than it does in NAFTA.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

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?

Then why would they set up a free trade agreement with non EU member that doesn't involve free movement? They are doing so with CETA. 106 billion dollars in imports from Germany alone -- i hardy think Germany is going to care if the Uk doesn't allow Polish workers in -- they are going to focus on keeping that trade record whole.

Im willing to bet that the EEA regulations are going to adapt to keep tariffs at 0

 

[panamaican]

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.

This is an area where more understanding of the US makes a difference.

Prior to becoming the U.S., this nation was essentially 13 different nations who traded with each other just like independent nations do.

When we signed the Constitution, one of the things that was written in was the specific inability to restrict commerce between states, overtly including the movement of state citizens.

The removal of the internal barrier is a boon to trade within the nation. The drafters of the Constitution realized that if you let states restrict commerce between them that it weakened the system as a whole by driving up internal costs as states jockeyed to protect either their labor market or their consumer market from other states.

What the EU attempted to do was duplicate the economic flexibility that the US has. Where all of the states benefit from the ability to move goods across state lines or hire talent from across state lines without fear of restrictive covenants and legislation.

Allowing the UK to act like a state when it's selling goods or buying them but act like a foreign nation when it's hiring people or preventing the hiring of it's citizens creates a duality that imbalances the relationship. Imagine if California could prevent people from Maryland getting jobs in California but opened the door for people in Virginia? Yet California keeps selling it's wine in Maryland and Maryland can't tax them any differently than wine from Virginia. That gives California leverage over Maryland that upsets the trade balance.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Because Canada and the UK are two different cases. And it took a long time to negotiate. And most important they do not have full access to the single market.
You cant use the CETA as an example for a Brexit Deal.
Now as an example the finance industry. The EU and Canada are not in competition to be the financial center of Europe because Canada is not located in Europe. It would be a completely different thing with the UK. The EU would only agree to a trade deal that made sure the financial center from Europe will be moved to Frankfurt.
Same with car manufacturers sure we will make some kind of deal. But the deal will be based on trying to move car manufacturers from the UK to the EU. We dont have that same realitonship with Canda that we have with the UK.

But London being the center of the EU banking world is a non point in the EEA. No one can reasonably expect that London remains the center -- obviously that has to go -- as well as using the UK as a bridge for NA and asian markets. My first point was that it was nearsighted for the UK to leave based on those reasons.

But in terms of buy and sell -- your economies are so intertwined and the EU is still made up of sovereign nations. I can't see how Germany, France, Netherlands, Norway etc being cool with the UK implementing tariffs as a reactionary policy to the EU mandating tariffs. UK would hurt the most (unless that gatwick oil discovery pans out) -- but its not like your major players wont also feel it. So continuing free trade of goods is mutually beneficial and there is no real reason for the free movement of people to affect that. why would ThyssenKrupp care if the UK doesnt want Polish labourers to come over? And do they really want Hasteel to come in make up the difference?

 

[panamaican]

Then why would they set up a free trade agreement with non EU member that doesn't involve free movement? They are doing so with CETA. 106 billion dollars in imports from Germany alone -- i hardy think Germany is going to care if the Uk doesn't allow Polish workers in -- they are going to focus on keeping that trade record whole.

Im willing to bet that the EEA regulations are going to adapt to keep tariffs at 0

And when CETA duplicates the dynamic between EU states then it's a fair comparison. Currently, it removes many trade barriers but inter-EU trade still has even less.

And CETA puts new regulations in place between Canada and the EU that don't exist now.

The UK and the EU can absolutely sign a Ceta like deal but it would be more restrictive than what the UK currently has with the EU. Which is basically what I've already said, the UK can sign new trade deals but they're going to be giving up something in exchange.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

This is an area where more understanding of the US makes a difference.

Prior to becoming the U.S., this nation was essentially 13 different nations who traded with each other just like independent nations do.

When we signed the Constitution, one of the things that was written in was the specific inability to restrict commerce between states, overtly including the movement of state citizens.

The removal of the internal barrier is a boon to trade within the nation. The drafters of the Constitution realized that if you let states restrict commerce between them that it weakened the system as a whole by driving up internal costs as states jockeyed to protect either their labor market or their consumer market from other states.

What the EU attempted to do was duplicate the economic flexibility that the US has. Where all of the states benefit from the ability to move goods across state lines or hire talent from across state lines without fear of restrictive covenants and legislation.

Allowing the UK to act like a state when it's selling goods or buying them but act like a foreign nation when it's hiring people or preventing the hiring of it's citizens creates a duality that imbalances the relationship. Imagine if California could prevent people from Maryland getting jobs in California but opened the door for people in Virginia? Yet California keeps selling it's wine in Maryland and Maryland can't tax them any differently than wine from Virginia. That gives California leverage over Maryland that upsets the trade balance.

Ok, and that would apply if each EU member gave up its sovereignty -- but it didn't. And you still have restrictive tax policies based on state regulation -- not to mention right to work policies the effect movement of businesses.

If the the EU was an actual sovereign country made of former territories with no method to secede from the Union i would buy the connection you're trying to make. But, the EU is not that -- and it does have an opt out policy with no clear parameters of future Free Trade agreements.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

And when CETA duplicates the dynamic between EU states then it's a fair comparison. Currently, it removes many trade barriers but inter-EU trade still has even less.

And CETA puts new regulations in place between Canada and the EU that don't exist now.

The UK and the EU can absolutely sign a Ceta like deal but it would be more restrictive than what the UK currently has with the EU. Which is basically what I've already said, the UK can sign new trade deals but they're going to be giving up something in exchange.

Ok, if they want to put in agriculture regulations and EFF clauses thats fine -- its just that its in the best interest of everyone that tariffs not be implemented. Obviously it cant work a like a single market but even though the UK benefits more -- Germany and Co is not going to want to hinder its largest sovereign purchaser of goods. the UK still has negative trade balance with 20 EU states and buys 250 billion euros worth of goods. That not a boat you want to rock by having them tariff you.

 

[SpawnOfNyarlathotep]

Judo hit it on the head, the UK is by far the most diverse country in Europe pre refugee crises (obviously due to their colonial history). Until recently, no country in Europe other than the UK had LESS than 90% of a dominant ethnic majority.

*cough*France*cough*

 

[panamaican]

Ok, and that would apply if each EU member gave up its sovereignty -- but it didn't. And you still have restrictive tax policies based on state regulation -- not to mention right to work policies the effect movement of businesses.

If the the EU was an actual sovereign country made of former territories with no method to secede from the Union i would buy the connection you're trying to make. But, the EU is not that -- and it does have an opt out policy with no clear parameters of future Free Trade agreements.

You really don't understand the dynamic between the states here. These are trade restrictions and the movement of people that we're talking about. Individual states didn't give up their ability to regulate internal affairs. They still have their own legislative bodies that pass laws on everything from taxes to building codes. THey still have individual school systems, roads, etc.

Our federal government can't mandate much to the states without their explicit agreement. They make federal laws which cover a limited amount o things, not state laws which cover basically everything. The EU operates like a federal government on trade. The individual nations operate like states on trade.

I'm trying to explaining why Canada-U.S. is a poor comparison to U.K.-EU. A more apt comparison would be a state leaving the U.S. and then negotiating for access to the U.S. market that mirrors what it had if it was still a state.

The benefits of being a state which include the inability for other states to restrict the flow of goods across state laines couldn't never be granted to a state that left. Because the rules and regulations that govern the internal flow of goods only apply if everyone is bound by our central regulating body. Once someone is outside of that regulating body then every aspect that was previously agreed upon has to be renegotiated and access to our markets would come with a cost. A cost that the states don't pay because they're subject ourpunishments if they violate our rules.

When the UK leaves, they're not just leaving the movement of goods and people. They're also leaving the disciplinary systems, the future regulations ensured to promote fair trade within the EU and other regulatory issues. But those issues were negotiated with the knowledge that people, not just goods, were travelling freely.

The EU can't let the UK take advantage of laws that assumed people and goods while the UK is only participating in goods. The 2 are intertwined.

 

[WhitebeltXL]

Ok, if they want to put in agriculture regulations and EFF clauses thats fine -- its just that its in the best interest of everyone that tariffs not be implemented. Obviously it cant work a like a single market but even though the UK benefits more -- Germany and Co is not going to want to hinder its largest sovereign purchaser of goods. the UK still has negative trade balance with 20 EU states and buys 250 billion euros worth of goods. That not a boat you want to rock by having them tariff you.

European countries and manufacturers are not gonna leave that money on the table. The UK knows this and the EU knows this. This game will be won depending on who caves first. German companies (in particular car manufacturers) are already putting pressure on Merkel to push to maintain the trade deal with the U.K.

I don't trust my current government to not cave in to the EU, personally.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

You really don't understand the dynamic between the states here. These are trade restrictions and the movement of people that we're talking about. Individual states didn't give up their ability to regulate internal affairs. They still have their own legislative bodies that pass laws on everything from taxes to building codes. THey still have individual school systems, roads, etc.

Our federal government can't mandate much to the states without their explicit agreement. They make federal laws which cover a limited amount o things, not state laws which cover basically everything. The EU operates like a federal government on trade. The individual nations operate like states on trade.

I'm trying to explaining why Canada-U.S. is a poor comparison to U.K.-EU. A more apt comparison would be a state leaving the U.S. and then negotiating for access to the U.S. market that mirrors what it had if it was still a state.

The benefits of being a state which include the inability for other states to restrict the flow of goods across state laines couldn't never be granted to a state that left. Because the rules and regulations that govern the internal flow of goods only apply if everyone is bound by our central regulating body. Once someone is outside of that regulating body then every aspect that was previously agreed upon has to be renegotiated and access to our markets would come with a cost. A cost that the states don't pay because they're subject ourpunishments if they violate our rules.

When the UK leaves, they're not just leaving the movement of goods and people. They're also leaving the disciplinary systems, the future regulations ensured to promote fair trade within the EU and other regulatory issues. But those issues were negotiated with the knowledge that people, not just goods, were travelling freely.

The EU can't let the UK take advantage of laws that assumed people and goods while the UK is only participating in goods. The 2 are intertwined.

Your argument is not applicable because a State cant secede from the US - the only way it can do that is either by force which wouldnt work or amend the constitution -- then you would basically need 2/3rds support from other states to get that done. Its a hypothetical comparison with no methodology.

The EU does have an opt out policy and there is no clear methodology on how to handle further trade agreement. Uk already abides by agreed upon conditions that dont involve movement of people. I see what you're saying that they cant expect to benefit from every aspect of a single market system but there is nothing that says they cant form a FTA that involves no tariffs or taxes or quotas on goods and/or services from one country entering another. There will be certain exceptions (like there already is with agriculture) but nothing that says tariffs must be mandated. Switzerland is facing a similar situation. Is there anything saying the UK cant rejoin the ETFA? Bilateral agreements direct with major states within the EU?

Unless you can point me to documentation that says otherwise.

 

[panamaican]

Ok, if they want to put in agriculture regulations and EFF clauses thats fine -- its just that its in the best interest of everyone that tariffs not be implemented. Obviously it cant work a like a single market but even though the UK benefits more -- Germany and Co is not going to want to hinder its largest sovereign purchaser of goods. the UK still has negative trade balance with 20 EU states and buys 250 billion euros worth of goods. That not a boat you want to rock by having them tariff you.

I don't care if you call it tariffs or dress it up some other way, the UK will pay higher costs to access the EU market than it paid as a member. And the UK will still buy the same goods from those EU states even if there was a tariff because they can't afford not to. They don't produce enough internally to actually rock that boat.

And between the EU and the UK, the EU can live without them far longer and far better than the UK can live without the EU.

Most of the UK's recent economic growth is tied to the growth of it's financial sector which is centered in London. But post-Brexit, there's little reason for London to remain the financial capital of Europe. And when the financial district shrinks as a result of the inability of top flight guys to get jobs there as easily as in an EU nation or because the banks need to be somewhere where the Euro is still in play then the UK's consumption will decrease right alongside it.

Which will have an impact on the import consumption of the nation and shrink those trade deficits right up. Maybe not erase them. But the UK's biggest export is their service industry now (~80%) and that means that the movement of people is more important to them than the movement of goods.

You can't discuss the UK's current economic position as if it arose independently of the benefits of the EU.

 

[panamaican]

Your argument is not applicable because a State cant secede from the US - the only way it can do that is either by force which wouldnt work or amend the constitution -- then you would basically need 2/3rds support from other states to get that done.

The EU does have an opt out policy and there is no clear methodology on how to handle further trade agreement. Uk already abides by agreed upon conditions that dont involve movement of people. I see what you're saying that they cant expect to benefit from every aspect of a single market system but there is nothing that says they cant form a FTA that involves no tariffs or taxes or quotas on goods and/or services from one country entering another. There will be certain exceptions (like there already is with agriculture) but nothing that says tariffs must be mandated. Switzerland is facing a similar situation.

Unless you can point me to documentation that says otherwise.

In the hypothetical, it doesn't matter how they leave. We're discussing the trade ramifications afterwards vs. the trade situation prior.

And I never said tariffs and nothing else. I said that the UK will have to give up something to get those trade deals. And if they don't want EU citizens accessing their job markets, the price will be steeper than if they allow it. I don't care if it takes the form of tariffs or some other restriction, the point is that there will be a cost.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I don't care if you call it tariffs or dress it up some other way, the UK will pay higher costs to access the EU market than it paid as a member. And the UK will still buy the same goods from those EU states even if there was a tariff because they can't afford not to. They don't produce enough internally to actually rock that boat.

And between the EU and the UK, the EU can live without them far longer and far better than the UK can live without the EU.

Most of the UK's recent economic growth is tied to the growth of it's financial sector which is centered in London. But post-Brexit, there's little reason for London to remain the financial capital of Europe. And when the financial district shrinks as a result of the inability of top flight guys to get jobs there as easily as in an EU nation or because the banks need to be somewhere where the Euro is still in play then the UK's consumption will decrease right alongside it.

Which will have an impact on the import consumption of the nation and shrink those trade deficits right up. Maybe not erase them. But the UK's biggest export is their service industry now (~80%) and that means that the movement of people is more important to them than the movement of goods.

You can't discuss the UK's current economic position as if it arose independently of the benefits of the EU.

In the hypothetical, it doesn't matter how they leave. We're discussing the trade ramifications afterwards vs. the trade situation prior.

And I never said tariffs and nothing else. I said that the UK will have to give up something to get those trade deals. And if they don't want EU citizens accessing their job markets, the price will be steeper than if they allow it. I don't care if it takes the form of tariffs or some other restriction, the point is that there will be a cost.

They can supplement with trade with Asia and avoid the extra costs -- i doubt germany wants to lose steel trade to china. I doubt any of those 20 states want to see any reduction from the UK. US, Can, India, Mexico have all express trade deal interest. Still talking about a top 10 economy here.

Serious question, What stops EFTA from expanding to include the UK, Ger, France etc. There is room for seperate trade deals within the framework

 

[HunterSdVa29]

*cough*France*cough*

my bad, correct france was a mighty 85-90% white as of the late 2000s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France#Ethnic_groups

 

[Hard To Tell]

Free movement of people between economically unequal nations is disastrous for ordinary working people. Then on top of that, as the movement is almost exclusively one way, these nation that people are migrating from have to replenish their depleted work force from somewhere so they do this by importing migrants of their own from countries poorer than themselves. Which is what we are seeing now in Eastern Europe.

Poland has even been using slave labor from North Korea.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ng-north-korean-slave-labourers-benefit-from/

Here's a good documentary on the devastating effects open borders are having on the poor in Moldova



This is the reality of open borders, the knock on effect is that the poorest people and the poorest countries get screwed over while big business laughs all the way to the bank.

 

[method115]

Free movement of people between economically unequal nations is disastrous for ordinary working people. Then on top of that, as the movement is almost exclusively one way, these nation that people are migrating from have to replenish their depleted work force from somewhere so they do this by importing migrants of their own from countries poorer than themselves. Which is what we are seeing now in Eastern Europe.

Poland has even been using slave labor from North Korea.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ng-north-korean-slave-labourers-benefit-from/

Here's a good documentary on the devastating effects open borders are having on the poor in Moldova



This is the reality of open borders, the knock on effect is that the poorest people and the poorest countries get screwed over while big business laughs all the way to the bank.

I didn't realize Poland was using North Korean slaves. This is crazy as fuck.

 

[RhinoRush]

Free movement of people between economically unequal nations is disastrous for ordinary working people. Then on top of that, as the movement is almost exclusively one way, these nation that people are migrating from have to replenish their depleted work force from somewhere so they do this by importing migrants of their own from countries poorer than themselves. Which is what we are seeing now in Eastern Europe.

Poland has even been using slave labor from North Korea.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ng-north-korean-slave-labourers-benefit-from/

Here's a good documentary on the devastating effects open borders are having on the poor in Moldova



This is the reality of open borders, the knock on effect is that the poorest people and the poorest countries get screwed over while big business laughs all the way to the bank.

So fucking sad what's happening to Europe. And they want to do the same thing to the US and the leftists couldn't be happier.

 

[TheStruggle]

So fucking sad what's happening to Europe. And they want to do the same thing to the US and the leftists couldn't be happier.

Leftists whether in the US or the UK have become a tool for the globalists corporate establishment and they are too stupid to see it because they have so much trust in government hey believe EVERY word they tell them.