2 ms·
But I'll ignore the tone and rhetorical nature of your question and try to explain. The UK decided to leave the EU which means leaving the single market. I'm
by derriz 9y ago
But I'll ignore the tone and rhetorical nature of your question and try to explain.
The UK decided to leave the EU which means leaving the single market. I'm guessing you do not appreciate the vast difference between being part of a single market and having a trade deal.
Regardless of the existence of NAFTA for example, a company based in Mexico city will not have all the same rights and access to the US market as one based in the US.
However being a member of the EU means, for example a Danish company can load up a van with its produce, drive to London and deliver them to a customer without any paperwork or customs checks along the way. It has all the rights of a company based in another UK city.
This can only work if there are shared standards across the EU and if there is an authority (ultimately the European Court of Justice) to ensure these rights are available to all. It also requires common standards for goods and services.
The UK simply cannot expect to maintain this level of access to the EU market unless it is willing to accept the ECJ and all the EU laws and regulations.
Btw, only someone with no historical perspective whatsoever would question the progressive credentials of the EU (given the recent history of some of its members: communist rule, military and fascist dictatorship, sectarian division) or accuse it of being protectionist (given that 17 of the 20 most globalised countries in the world in terms of trade are members).
- blibble 9y ago> Btw, only someone with no historical perspective whatsoever would question the progressive credentials of the EU (given the recent history of some of its members: communist rule, military and fascist dictatorship, sectarian division) or accuse it of being protectionist I would challenge you to explain how the Common External Tariff combined with the Common Agricultural Policy are not protectionist (tariffs average 18%)! outside of the CAP: there are plenty of other examples of heavy protectionism in the CET. sugar and coffee are two easy examples. sugar has a heavy import tariff: to give the domestic EU sugar beet industry an huge advantage over the cane sugar business in the developing world coffee is more insidious: processed coffee has a heavy import tariff, whilst unprocessed coffee has no tariff at all, this prevents producers in developing countries from developing the profitable part of the industry, forcing them to sell the raw produce at low prices to the EU there are plenty of other examples, the net effect of being that if you are a developing nation: the EU is not an easy destination for your goods
- derriz 9y agoI would challenge you to explain what is exceptionally protectionist about EU agricultural policy compared to say the US, Japan or any other large economy. CAP is a product of its time (sixties and seventies) but has been and continues to be reformed beyond recognition. All the export subsidies, quotas, price floors and other market distortions are gone or are in the process of being phased out. As for sugar tariffs, it has been used as a tool for development policy with developing countries having zero-tariff access to EU markets. The processed Coffee tariff is not "heavy" - certainly less than 10% from what I recall.
- blibble 9y agoI didn't say "compared to other large economies", I said it was protectionist in itself, which it is yes, the CAP was a product of its time, but it's still there, it still makes up a huge 39% of the budget[1] (down from 79%, true), and the external tariffs on agriculture average out to a whopping 18% if this isn't protectionism, what is? [1]: https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/cap-post-2013/graphs/graph1_en.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/cap...