Yes it does, I am aware however that these are the real Europhiles and other part of the system are more nationalistic and at the end of the day national Governments really have the final say (on direction and policy).
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Tariffs are imposed by one side, typically if someone applies a tariff to your goods you would reciprocate as punishment and a warning to others, there is no requirement to do this however.
you responded to "Imports will only cost more if we choose to apply tariffs." with "Not according to WTO most favoured nation tariff rules." we chose whether to impose the Tariff the WTO rules are on how we go about it.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
Yes obviously. The point is, its not just tariffs we charge other countries - Scaras assertion. There are also the tariffs exporters have to charge us under WTO terms. WTO terms are not a cap at all, they ensure that if you export shoes to Cameroon and you charge 7%, you have to also charge that to the UK. See most favoured nation info above. Tarrifs are applied on both sides, and regardless of whether the UK gives zero tariffs (which they won't anyway) exports to the UK from the EU will carry tariffs.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
We can not choose to apply tariffs on imports to the UK under WTO - that is the point.
We don't choose what the EUs Most Favoured Nation WTO tariffs are. So we could never control tariff on imports from the EU without a free trade agreement.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
You call my point of view nonsense and say 'Why are you struggling with this concept? Maybe because you are stuck in one narrative - must-argue-for Brexit-regardless-of-logic ' in a rather mocking tone, and then accuse me of making personal?
And Im making it personal by pointing out your style of debate is to go very quiet on things you were very loud on previously when a comprehensive counter is presented? Its exactly what has been happening.
Im not trying to win an argument, Im trying - in vain - to have you actually understand the point being made before arguing against it.
And, your answer suggests Im clearly failing.
You are coming from an accepted truth* that us having a free trade agreement, including services, with the EU is "better terms". I assume this to mean "better terms than being in the EU". And then, of course, the logic follows to "why would the EU do that?!" - which is where your comments lead to so I feel my assumption is a fair one.
Here is the thing. Thats rubbish, IMO. What are these "Better terms"? To continue trading as we are** but not be involved in the budgetting, benefits of grants, and infrastructure works, free movement of people, central governance, common currency and politics?
Well, thats better *for us* but that doesnt mean its universally better for everyone, does it? And THIS is the point.
We dont want to be in the organisation. It is better for us to trade as we do, but not be part of the club. FOR US.
Ive alredy pointed out - it wouldnt be so favourable for Poland would it? For them, "better terms" is exactly what they have.
And in so far as trading arrangements go, a free trade agreement would be better for the EU than nothing, or one involving tariffs. There is plenty of trade between the UK and the EU27 and it would be mutually beneficial for that to continue. Its not like the EU are doing us a favour here, they get benefit out of it as well. Which is something your answer does show you understand. "an advantage to everyone" - your words.
So what exactly is "clear" about these "better terms" that I have missed?
*an accepted truth being something people just believe to be true once they have heard it enough times.
**like the goods arrangement with Canada, and the proposed services arrangement with Ukraine mentioned by GB - so hardly wildly out of the realms of possibility.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
@nayimfromthehalfwayline I get your point: its complex, what is advantageous for one country is not so for another.
While that maybe true, I'd respectfully suggest that you are over complicating a simple premise - that the EU won't sort external countries out over its members - as a means to try and find an angle to support Brexit. Which is ingenious, but its also futile. There are positives to Brexit, but this is not one of them. Leaving the EU and thinking that we'll get better trading terms than we have now, is deluded imo. Most of our trade is with the EU. Every nation in the world trades mainly with its neighbours.
While that maybe true, I'd respectfully suggest that you are over complicating a simple premise - that the EU won't sort external countries out over its members - as a means to try and find an angle to support Brexit. Which is ingenious, but its also futile. There are positives to Brexit, but this is not one of them. Leaving the EU and thinking that we'll get better trading terms than we have now, is deluded imo. Most of our trade is with the EU. Every nation in the world trades mainly with its neighbours.
Without wishing to sound like a stuck record:
Tariffs are applied on imports by the tax authority with jurisdiction over the importing entity. You don't charge any tariffs for exporting shoes anywhere, because even lefties would consider that a really bad idea. Nations want their businesses to export abroad because that's how you turn a zero sum financial game into a virtually infinite one (within the scope of any government's budget).
Unless I am reading it completely wrong MFN means that we have the ability to charge zero Tariffs as long as we apply it equally to all others (which we wont want to do anyway)/
The Most Favoured Nation Treatment or National Trade Relation is an obligation to treat activities of a particular foreign country or its citizens at least as favourably as it treats the activities of any other country. MFN is the policy of non-discrimination in trade that provides to all trading partners the same customs and tariff treatment given to other favoured nations. The phrase most favoured maybe interpreted as especially favourable treatment but the concept of GATT is equal treatment to other party which is most favored. In the GATT the MFN obligation calls for each contracting party to grant to every other contracting party the most favourable treatment that it grants to any country with respect to imports and exports of products. (Abimbola, 2005).
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/general-studies/non-discrimination-gatt-law.php
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...on-eu-imports-would-break-wto-rules-1.3307267
http://blogs.worldbank.org/trade/picture-trade-types-tariffs-explained
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
Hmmm a quick google shows that the WTO is concerned with footware tariffs https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...eu-in-shoe-dumping-case-idUSTRE79R65T20111028
It doesn't matter what the commodity is, could be cars, there would be WTO tariffs on imports from the EU that we can't control. That is why hard brexit under WTO terms is commonly seen as a terrible idea for the UK.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
And this is precisely my point.
How are we getting "better trading terms"? We want THE SAME trading terms. No better than anyone else.
What we dont want is the ever closer union, and all that entails. Just look at the links on this very page about countries right to veto being neutered. We want none of the politics, just the trade. And yes, that means missing out on many of the benefits you are so keen on as well.
While that is "better terms for us" I simply do not understand the idea its "better trading terms than we have now" or indeed "the EU sorting external counties out over its members".
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
The point from the beginning, is that we can not control tariffs on EU imports. There would be tariffs regardless of what the UK decided to charge for its exports. If the EU charged us zero tariffs, it would have to charge every other nation that doesn't have a FTA zero tariffs too.
No one said we could control the duty the EU charge us, only that the UK do not have to impose Tariffs on imports. This would mean our imports would not be any more expensive but our exports would be more expensive in the EU as they have imposed the Tariff, we are free to impose 0 tariffs to everyone.
take a look at http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/downloadfiles/gCT0212e.pdf
Summary:
“Most-Favoured-Nation” (“MFN”) treatment — requires Members to
accord the most favourable tariff and regulatory treatment given to the product
of any one Member at the time of import or export of “like products”
to all other Members. This is a bedrock principle of the WTO. Under the
MFN rule, if WTO Member A agrees in negotiations with country B, which
need not be a WTO Member, to reduce the tariff on product X to five percent,
this same “tariff rate” must also apply to all other WTO Members as
well. In other words, if a country gives favourable treatment to one country
regarding a particular issue, it must treat all Members equally with respect
to the same issue.
In this case China are arguing that the EU
The EU do not impose Tariffs on exports only imports, they have zero charges on exports for every country already so there will be no change in policy - your example with China was a Tariff on imports.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
Better for example is that we can trade without barriers with non-EU nations, change our product laws, pollution laws, trading laws, worker rights laws etc while also having free EU trade. Never going to happen. If you were the EU would you let us do that? Fantastic if we can. I would be a convert to Brexit if we could. Quite simply: the EU can not give the UK better trading terms than members get. No amount of complicating matters gets us over this fundamental point.
Last edited:
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
See above.
If you read back, you'll see my point was we don't control tariffs on imports under WTO. Also that WTO tariffs are not a maximum but give equality. Which is silly because if you have a FTA there is no equality anyway.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
You are talking as much about standards and the environment as you are actual trade.
We should be free to trade with Non-EU countries. There is nothing to stop the EU trying to do the same. Were we to leave, that would be our prerogative. I dont see how that is them "offering us better terms". The point in us leaving is to choose to do these things, no matter what they say once we are out we have that choice.
Change product laws? Only where its none of their business. I would expect to maintain suitable standards on anything we wanted to trade with the EU.
Pollution - non of their business and nothing to do with trade. And, yet, we both know we would likely participate in/copy decent policies on this anyway.
Trading laws - workers rights - none of their business. They have no place telling China how to do things, same as with us. That is the point in leaving - for you to suggest it is "better terms" for us - well logically would you then argue we are on worse terms as part of the EU?
I am yet to see these "better trading terms". All the EU can influence is their relationship with us, not ours with anyone else.
And, as youve already said, a FTA is the the advantage of all involved.
We do control Tariffs on imports - if we set it at 0 for one we have to do it for all - https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/schedules_e/goods_schedules_e.htm
To put it simply when the EU sells their goods to non EU members they do not charge the exporter for selling. It is then up to the UK whether we charge a Tariff, we are free to set this as zero as long as we do it for all this will be the UKs MFN status.
When the UK sells their goods to non UK members they do not charge the exporter for selling. The EU will then apply their MFN tariff to the goods coming in.
In this example imports into the UK will not cost more however for those within the EU buying our exports the cost will rise for them.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
Where do you get that from. Its contrary to all economic modelling I've seen. If we buy a BMW in the UK under WTO hard brexit are you saying we would not face additional tariffs?
Yes, that's absolutely the case.