3 ms·

A trade agreement is not required for trade, at least as far as I understand it. The absence of one just means you have more flexibility (subject to WTO restric

A trade agreement is not required for trade, at least as far as I understand it. The absence of one just means you have more flexibility (subject to WTO restrictions) in applying tariffs, but with a weaker pound tariffs become less relevant.

jonknee 10y ago
Yes, but that's a far cry from the current single market. You can bet that Brussels is not going to let the UK have access to the single market without huge concessions. Concessions that undermine the whole reason for Brexit. It looks like the WTO rules could be expensive: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-wto-idUSKCN0YG1C8 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-wto-idUSKCN0YG1... An added kicker is that the UK currently has no trade negotiators because they haven't had to negotiate their own deals in a couple generations. They'll need to get up to speed very quickly with a very large number of negotiators. You don't usually have to negotiate all your agreements at once!
- Amezarak 10y ago
  If the pound remains weak, then even with tariffs, UK exports to the EU could be cheaper than they were pre-Brexit, no concessions needed. I concede to greater minds than mine, but those minds are estimating something in the range of a 2-3% impact in the long term, nothing drastic. I'm unclear about the reasoning behind the doom-and-gloom.
  - jonknee 10y ago
    > I concede to greater minds than mine, but those minds are estimating something in the range of a 2-3% impact in the long term, nothing drastic. I'm unclear about the reasoning behind the doom-and-gloom. To be fair, a 2-3% impact is huge in the scheme of things. Especially in the current slow-growth environment. As a comparison, in the US February 2008 to February 2010 there was a 5.1% GDP contraction and that event will be in history books for centuries.

3 ms·

A trade agreement is not required for trade, at least as far as I understand it. The absence of one just means you have more flexibility (subject to WTO restric

by Amezarak 10y ago

jonknee 10y ago
Yes, but that's a far cry from the current single market. You can bet that Brussels is not going to let the UK have access to the single market without huge concessions. Concessions that undermine the whole reason for Brexit. It looks like the WTO rules could be expensive: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-wto-idUSKCN0YG1C8 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-wto-idUSKCN0YG1... An added kicker is that the UK currently has no trade negotiators because they haven't had to negotiate their own deals in a couple generations. They'll need to get up to speed very quickly with a very large number of negotiators. You don't usually have to negotiate all your agreements at once!
- Amezarak 10y ago
  If the pound remains weak, then even with tariffs, UK exports to the EU could be cheaper than they were pre-Brexit, no concessions needed. I concede to greater minds than mine, but those minds are estimating something in the range of a 2-3% impact in the long term, nothing drastic. I'm unclear about the reasoning behind the doom-and-gloom.
  - jonknee 10y ago
    > I concede to greater minds than mine, but those minds are estimating something in the range of a 2-3% impact in the long term, nothing drastic. I'm unclear about the reasoning behind the doom-and-gloom. To be fair, a 2-3% impact is huge in the scheme of things. Especially in the current slow-growth environment. As a comparison, in the US February 2008 to February 2010 there was a 5.1% GDP contraction and that event will be in history books for centuries.