6 ms·

Is this the final shoe to drop? The gamble payed off. Brexit does not seem like a terrible idea if they get tariff free trade. I can’t believe the EU would agre

by zests 6y ago

Is this the final shoe to drop? The gamble payed off. Brexit does not seem like a terrible idea if they get tariff free trade. I can’t believe the EU would agree to this.

mytailorisrich 6y ago
We need to look at the actual deal but tariff-free trade in itself is still much worse than the previous situation. Being in the EU/single market meant that UK businesses and individuals could do business, including in services, throughout the single market (EU, Switzerland, Norway) like if it was all in the UK: completely free and unrestricted for everything. Going from that to just being able to export goods with no tariffs would be a massive step down that would have a profound impact, especially on services (the bulk of the UK's economy).
- blibble 6y ago
  the single market for goods is vast and nearly complete, but the single market for services never really existed
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    Well, it's not perfect but there are tens of thousands of jobs in places like London that rely on being able to freely offer professional services throughout the single market and to freely travel. Passporting for banking is critical, too.
orange_tee 6y ago
As always with any trade agreement there will be winners and losers on both sides. Sure on the macro level you can run some numbers and conclude that one is the overall winner, but this is of little meaning to the people. What is more meaningful is for each individual to figure out if they stand to gain or lose. If the EU agreed to "sell out" an industry, that is only because they got something in return for some other industry. This is one of the criticisms of trade agreements in general. The government basically picks winners and losers... their say can make or break whole industries.
- rjknight 6y ago
  Normally we don’t think of trade in terms of “winners” and “losers”, at least in absolute terms. Any restriction on trade reduces the overall level of possible economic activity, so a situation that reduces trade relative to the alternative is an overall loss. We can talk about “winners” and “losers” in relative terms, if we accept that “winning” just means “losing less than the other side”. Of course, this isn’t a purely economic question: people who voted for Brexit did so in part because they valued other things (e.g. restrictions on immigration, national sovereignty, national democratic self-determination) more than the economic cost that comes from having them.
  - orange_tee 6y ago
    As I said who is winning and losing on a macro level is of little importance, so sure if you want me to take the liberal view, all are winners. But what is more important is winning and losing on the micro level and now I will disagree with you if you tell me there are no losers. There most certainly are losers. Some industries from both sides will be sacrificed as part of the deal and people involved in those industries will certainly lose a whole lot of money.
JohnTHaller 6y ago
"Businesses will face extra paperwork and costs when trading with the UK’s biggest export market. Freedom of movement for most UK nationals will end, with restrictions imposed on stays in EU member states. As a “third country” to the EU, coronavirus travel restrictions could be imposed on UK nationals as of 1 January."
- zests 6y ago
  All I can remember from the last month is “Brexit was a bad idea —- without a trade deal the UK is ruined.”
  - Isinlor 6y ago
    It's not black and white. In all cases there is consensus that Brexit will be bad economically. UK went with the middle bad scenario according to their own leaked analysis [0]. The "no deal" scenario, which would see the UK revert to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, would reduce growth by 8% over that period. The softest Brexit option of continued single-market access through membership of the European Economic Area would, in the longer term, still lower growth by 2%. [0] https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-committees/Exiting-the-European-Union/17-19/Cross-Whitehall-briefing/EU-Exit-Analysis-Cross-Whitehall-Briefing.pdf https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-com...
  - pjc50 6y ago
    No deal would have been a disaster. This is a deal, but doesn't address "non tariff barriers" like technical requirements. The trucks can roll again (once quarantine rules allow!) A few individual industries get whacked; one example I've seen is seed potatoes.
YawningAngel 6y ago
The UK economy is mostly services based, so tariff free trade in goods, while obviously useful, is not that impactful for us
Fanch22 6y ago
Maybe? Until the fishing right are denounced by France and the deal vetoed? Honestly, i think they will be a war between Brittany and britain's fishermen if the deal is not done correctly. I've heard fishermen cooperative planned their motor issues front of port entries for the next two month, issues that will prevent them to move out the way and prevent England to sell fresh fish (at least around St-Malo, and Malouins are the less obtuse bretons imho, i will probably be worse west of there). I fear this small issue of fishing will be a pain for the next decade
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  Nobody cares about fishing. It's a rounding error in any economic statistic. Its only use was as a nationalistic red herring, something that people actually understand and that could ultimately be sold as a win while giving the EU everything it wants on the matters that matter.
  - Ekaros 6y ago
    With fishing, I wonder how long will it take that it will return to some sort of status quo. That is EU companies will keep fishing and maybe the move the flag and subsidiary to UK, but there won't be any real new jobs in UK...
tsimionescu 6y ago
It sounds bad, but it actually means that Britain gets to export everything they exported before to the EU (so the EU is no worse off), but now the UK have no say on the rules for what they are allowed to export or not. As a silly example, if the EU decided to ban any candy painted in british racing green, the UK would have to abide by that decision; while, if it were in the EU, it could have likely blocked it.

by zests 6y ago

Is this the final shoe to drop? The gamble payed off. Brexit does not seem like a terrible idea if they get tariff free trade. I can’t believe the EU would agree to this.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

We need to look at the actual deal but tariff-free trade in itself is still much worse than the previous situation. Being in the EU/single market meant that UK businesses and individuals could do business, including in services, throughout the single market (EU, Switzerland, Norway) like if it was all in the UK: completely free and unrestricted for everything. Going from that to just being able to export goods with no tariffs would be a massive step down that would have a profound impact, especially on services (the bulk of the UK's economy).

blibble 6y ago
the single market for goods is vast and nearly complete, but the single market for services never really existed
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  Well, it's not perfect but there are tens of thousands of jobs in places like London that rely on being able to freely offer professional services throughout the single market and to freely travel. Passporting for banking is critical, too.

orange_tee 6y ago

As always with any trade agreement there will be winners and losers on both sides. Sure on the macro level you can run some numbers and conclude that one is the overall winner, but this is of little meaning to the people. What is more meaningful is for each individual to figure out if they stand to gain or lose. If the EU agreed to "sell out" an industry, that is only because they got something in return for some other industry. This is one of the criticisms of trade agreements in general. The government basically picks winners and losers... their say can make or break whole industries.

rjknight 6y ago
Normally we don’t think of trade in terms of “winners” and “losers”, at least in absolute terms. Any restriction on trade reduces the overall level of possible economic activity, so a situation that reduces trade relative to the alternative is an overall loss. We can talk about “winners” and “losers” in relative terms, if we accept that “winning” just means “losing less than the other side”. Of course, this isn’t a purely economic question: people who voted for Brexit did so in part because they valued other things (e.g. restrictions on immigration, national sovereignty, national democratic self-determination) more than the economic cost that comes from having them.
- orange_tee 6y ago
  As I said who is winning and losing on a macro level is of little importance, so sure if you want me to take the liberal view, all are winners. But what is more important is winning and losing on the micro level and now I will disagree with you if you tell me there are no losers. There most certainly are losers. Some industries from both sides will be sacrificed as part of the deal and people involved in those industries will certainly lose a whole lot of money.

JohnTHaller 6y ago

"Businesses will face extra paperwork and costs when trading with the UK’s biggest export market. Freedom of movement for most UK nationals will end, with restrictions imposed on stays in EU member states. As a “third country” to the EU, coronavirus travel restrictions could be imposed on UK nationals as of 1 January."

zests 6y ago
All I can remember from the last month is “Brexit was a bad idea —- without a trade deal the UK is ruined.”
- Isinlor 6y ago
  It's not black and white. In all cases there is consensus that Brexit will be bad economically. UK went with the middle bad scenario according to their own leaked analysis [0]. The "no deal" scenario, which would see the UK revert to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, would reduce growth by 8% over that period. The softest Brexit option of continued single-market access through membership of the European Economic Area would, in the longer term, still lower growth by 2%. [0] https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-committees/Exiting-the-European-Union/17-19/Cross-Whitehall-briefing/EU-Exit-Analysis-Cross-Whitehall-Briefing.pdf https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-com...
- pjc50 6y ago
  No deal would have been a disaster. This is a deal, but doesn't address "non tariff barriers" like technical requirements. The trucks can roll again (once quarantine rules allow!) A few individual industries get whacked; one example I've seen is seed potatoes.

YawningAngel 6y ago

The UK economy is mostly services based, so tariff free trade in goods, while obviously useful, is not that impactful for us

Fanch22 6y ago

Maybe? Until the fishing right are denounced by France and the deal vetoed? Honestly, i think they will be a war between Brittany and britain's fishermen if the deal is not done correctly. I've heard fishermen cooperative planned their motor issues front of port entries for the next two month, issues that will prevent them to move out the way and prevent England to sell fresh fish (at least around St-Malo, and Malouins are the less obtuse bretons imho, i will probably be worse west of there). I fear this small issue of fishing will be a pain for the next decade

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
Nobody cares about fishing. It's a rounding error in any economic statistic. Its only use was as a nationalistic red herring, something that people actually understand and that could ultimately be sold as a win while giving the EU everything it wants on the matters that matter.
- Ekaros 6y ago
  With fishing, I wonder how long will it take that it will return to some sort of status quo. That is EU companies will keep fishing and maybe the move the flag and subsidiary to UK, but there won't be any real new jobs in UK...

tsimionescu 6y ago

It sounds bad, but it actually means that Britain gets to export everything they exported before to the EU (so the EU is no worse off), but now the UK have no say on the rules for what they are allowed to export or not. As a silly example, if the EU decided to ban any candy painted in british racing green, the UK would have to abide by that decision; while, if it were in the EU, it could have likely blocked it.