Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
JPRouve said:
Paul, if I tell you that they don't understand "Most favoured country", what do you say?

Edit: That information answers all the questions that everyone might have.
Click to expand...

I've had a quick read through it, there are some really frightening things in there, either they have no idea what they're doing or deliberately trying to fool every body and if anyone questions them they say it's Project Fear.

There are so many points to dispute.

One thing I do get the impression of though, is that they think the current negotiations between the EU and the UK are about a trade deal and not about the UK leaving the EU.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I've had a quick read through it, there are some really frightening things in there, either they have no idea what they're doing or deliberately trying to fool every body and if anyone questions them they say it's Project Fear.

There are so many points to dispute.

One thing I do get the impression of though, is that they think the current negotiations between the EU and the UK are about a trade deal and not about the UK leaving the EU.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's difficult to know if it's done on purpose or if they genuinely don't understand some subjects.
 
Member 5225 said:
Feck it, let’s go a step further and increase taxes on people that actually work hard so those other folks get vacations funded for them, you know, to make sure they don’t feel left out, are well rested, and have good mental health too...
Click to expand...

I thought you could do better than a strawman.
 
Member 5225 said:
Depends if you think it should be ‘free’ - even Canada that has ‘free’ healthcare has far more strict measures for it.

Bolded part is so subjective.
Click to expand...
Right, Paz, yeah, you're really comparing Canada's and the US healthcare systems in a serious manner. Ok.
 
JPRouve said:
Yeah, it's difficult to know if it's done on purpose or if they genuinely don't understand some subjects.
Click to expand...

If the UK had a strong press that wasn't pro-Brexit , or a strong opposition that wasn't pro-Brexit or even a strong Prime Minister or anyone of stature with any strength of mind that wasn't pro-Brexit this would be a brilliant opportunity to destroy the Brexiteers fantasy world, they've laid an opportunity on a plate for their lies and deceit to be revealed but it won't happen.
 
Even Hammond admits the Economists for Free Trade Guide is a load of tripe:
His reaction
  • The report was launched by Prof Patrick Minford this morning.Asked for his reaction, Hammond replied:
What [Minford] has done is assume a 4% benefit to UK GDP by unilaterally liberalising our trade system, ie abolishing our tariffs unilaterally, notwithstanding first of all that would leave us with no leverage to negotiate free trade deals with any third countries, which I think is the objective of many of his supporters. And notwithstanding studies done by others - the LSE, for example, found that the boost would be 0.3 percentage points, Open Europe found that it would be 0.75 percentage points.

His model makes no allowance for differences in quality [and] safety of imported goods, nor does it make any allowance for distance-related transport costs. And it assumes that all standards imposed on imported goods will be abolished.

He assumes that there are no additional non-tariff barriers to trade between the UK and the EU in a no deal scenario, which is frankly not plausible.

And then for financial service, he assumes that an equivalence arrangement delivering a similar affect to passporting will exist between the UK and the EU in a no deal scenari, notwithstanding the fact that we have heard very loud and clear noises to the contrary from some of our near European neighbours who have other aspirations about our financial services industry.

So I’m afraid I find I’m sure his model is very effective. But the assumptions that he makes are wildly out of line with assumptions that are used by other economic models and frankly I believe are not sustainable.
 
His model also made the assumption that we could import food at bargain basement prices and our farmers will continue as normal.
If I was a student under Minford, I would change my course so I don't have to be taught by an imbecile.
 
There are so many errors/lies, already around a hundred with a quick look ,throughout that document. A few favourites:

In other words, if we were to impose existing CET tariffs against the EU, HM Treasury would gain a bonus in tariff revenue but, importantly, the tariffs would make no other difference to our Brexit economic gains. This scenario would be extremely difficult for the EU: a £13 billion UK tariff burden would fall on EU exporters, while it would be EU importers who would have to pay the EU Commission its £5 billion in EU tariffs`

Spot the error/lie. This has to be a joke.

It is quite likely that we will liberalise our standards to modernise our economy post-Brexit. As such, exporters to the UK will probably not need to change much, if at all, as more varieties of products are deemed acceptable, subject to reasonable safety standards and the like.
then
For these reasons, Armageddon type predictions that the EU would freeze out UK goods by refusing to recognise them as complying with EU standards in breach of WTO rules and in a worse way than it treats any other non-EU country are simply not realistic

Ermm, say that again but not in gibberish. You're saying anybody can ship any old crap to the UK and as a bonus there'll be no tariffs.

And, in the medium-term, the devaluation of the pound would enhance competitiveness.

So there will be devaluation and not short-term but now medium-term.
Forgot to mention the UK imports more than it exports so what about this financial hit.

And there's more...
 
Adisa said:
His model also made the assumption that we could import food at bargain basement prices and our farmers will continue as normal.
If I was a student under Minford, I would change my course so I don't have to be taught by an imbecile.
Click to expand...

One of them should grade the paper and put it on his desk.
 
Also, when did "World Trade Deal" become a thing? There is nothing like that. Sophisticated way of using language to butter the public up to something we wouldn't even qualify for, for months after we crash out.
 
Adisa said:
Also, when did "World Trade Deal" become a thing? There is nothing like that. Sophisticated way of using language to butter the public up to something we wouldn't even qualify for, for months after we crash out.
Click to expand...

It's this brilliant idea, the UK charges no tariffs on any goods from any country. Then the UK says to country 'X' - can we have a FTA please.
Country 'X' says why do we need a FTA, there are no tariffs on the goods we export to you.

UK says to Country 'X' , Yeah but no but yeah but no but you charge tariffs on our goods we export to you.
Country 'X' says "Tough shit."
 
unilaterally abolishing all tariffs would benefit any country. That's not even really debatable from an economic perspective. Non-tariff barriers are something completely different so.
 
Adisa said:
It was a bizarre post. I can just imagine the Yanks dying in their homes cause they can't even afford to see a consultant, scoffing at out healthcare and how much tax we pay.
Click to expand...

Talking to a Trump voter - he was ok with slightly higher taxes on himself and much higher taxes on rich people if he could get free healthcare. The conversation was him laughing at UK tax rates and then me explaining how the NHS works; he seemed to buy it.
 
PedroMendez said:
unilaterally abolishing all tariffs would benefit any country. That's not even really debatable from an economic perspective. Non-tariff barriers are something completely different so.
Click to expand...

I can ship to the UK all the cheddar the UK can eat at half the price it can be produced in the UK, debate. Cheddar is not a protected name and can be produced anywhere.
Hope this benefits the British cheddar producers.
 
Ideological Brexiteers cling to Minford on the economic consequences of no deal in the same way anti-semites used to rely on David Irving for WWII history. In other words, you can’t totally discount what we say, no matter how contrary to the evidence, because one lone nutter draped in some form of academic respectability supports our arguments.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I can ship to the UK all the cheddar the UK can eat at half the price it can be produced in the UK, debate. Cheddar is not a protected name and can be produced anywhere.
Hope this benefits the British cheddar producers.
Click to expand...
No British name will be protected post-Brexit, with it being an evil EU law. Never liked stilton anyway tbf.
 
JMR just saying on C4 news that 'no government would take self-harming acts'...and we're still in denial.
 
PedroMendez said:
unilaterally abolishing all tariffs would benefit any country. That's not even really debatable from an economic perspective. Non-tariff barriers are something completely different so.
Click to expand...

It's actually extremely debatable and "all" is definitely wrong. Abolishing tariffs is only a good thing if you definitely have the upper hand, you basically need to be at a point where your industry has almost all the advantages possible on its competition in terms of price, quality and capacity, you also need to have all the advantages in terms of R&D. That's almost never the case.
 
JPRouve said:
It's actually extremely debatable and "all" is definitely wrong. Abolishing tariffs is only a good thing if you definitely have the upper hand, you basically need to be at a point where your industry has almost all the advantages possible on its competition in terms of price, quality and capacity, you also need to have all the advantages in terms of R&D. That's almost never the case.
Click to expand...

all three claims are unambiguously false. It sounds like a mercantilist way of looking at trade and we are over 200 years past that. The beauty of free trade is that you need non of these things and its still win/win.
 
PedroMendez said:
all three claims are unambiguously false. It sounds like a mercantilist way of looking at trade and we are over 200 years past that. The beauty of free trade is that you need non of these things and its still win/win.
Click to expand...

Who exactly wins in your free trade scenario?
 
PedroMendez said:
unilaterally abolishing all tariffs would benefit any country. That's not even really debatable from an economic perspective. Non-tariff barriers are something completely different so.
Click to expand...

Not even debatable? Do you have any idea of economics? Sorry, not economics. Do you have any idea of common sense?
 
PedroMendez said:
all three claims are unambiguously false. It sounds like a mercantilist way of looking at trade and we are over 200 years past that. The beauty of free trade is that you need non of these things and its still win/win.
Click to expand...

Can you expand on that? How does a smaller underdeveloped country that abolishes all tariffs benefit? Yes, they'll have cheaper superior imports than their homemade goods in the beginning, but what will keep their currency afloat once their own economy is dead (beyond retail) and all the land is sold?

I generally agree that free trade is a win/win between developed economies by the way, just don't agree that it is for everybody/everywhere/all the time.
 
JPRouve said:
Who exactly wins in your free trade scenario?
Click to expand...

in aggregate both countries gain wealth compared to a counterfactual where trade is hindered due to tariffs. My initial statement was a provocative one-liner, that lacks any nuance. Its still true to the extend that such a broad generalization can be true. I don't think that the brexit thread is the correct place to argue about the economics of trade in detail especially because most of this is pretty much basic stuff. Additionally I am in agreement with anyone who finds this "World Trade Deal" and generally the political leadership of Brexiteers ridiculous. Their numbers are plugged out of thin air, they are in denial about the political reality, they don't seem to understand what dropping out of the EU even means, they certainly don't understand the reality of FTAs and they don't even seem to understand what non-tariff barriers are.
The whole reason why I wrote this one sentence is because it irritates me, that there is so much opposition to free trade despite the unambiguous evidence that free trade is pretty freaking great.
 
PedroMendez said:
in aggregate both countries gain wealth compared to a counterfactual where trade is hindered due to tariffs. My initial statement was a provocative one-liner, that lacks any nuance. Its still true to the extend that such a broad generalization can be true. I don't think that the brexit thread is the correct place to argue about the economics of trade in detail especially because most of this is pretty much basic stuff. Additionally I am in agreement with anyone who finds this "World Trade Deal" and generally the political leadership of Brexiteers ridiculous. Their numbers are plugged out of thin air, they are in denial about the political reality, they don't seem to understand what dropping out of the EU even means, they certainly don't understand the reality of FTAs and they don't even seem to understand what non-tariff barriers are.
The whole reason why I wrote this one sentence is because it irritates me, that there is so much opposition to free trade despite the unambiguous evidence that free trade is pretty freaking great.
Click to expand...

And my issue was with the unambiguous nature of the statement and your first sentence is still wrong, it depends on the countries and their respective industries, education systems, level of infrastructure, among other things. Free trade is a good thing but it's not applicable to everything and everyone at every moment, it's a case by case consideration. It's like protectionism, sometimes it's good other times it's bad.
 
JPRouve said:
And my issue was with the unambiguous nature of the statement and your first sentence is still wrong, it depends on the countries and their respective industries, education systems, level of infrastructure, among other things. Free trade is a good thing but it's not applicable to everything and everyone at every moment, it's a case by case consideration. It's like protectionism, sometimes it's good other times it's bad.
Click to expand...
1) If every country in the world would drop all tariffs, every country would benefit. Thats not a controversal statement and backed up by the literature and understanding of the topic.
2) Doing it unilateral is somewhat different and slightly more nuanced.

feel free to question the second point. Thats fair enough. If you doubt the first statement, just read the mainstream literature about free trade. The benefits of free trade is one of the few unambiguous findings of economics.
 
PedroMendez said:
1) If every country in the world would drop all tariffs, every country would benefit. Thats not a controversal statement and backed up by the literature and understanding of the topic.
2) Doing it unilateral is somewhat different and slightly more nuanced.

feel free to question the second point. Thats fair enough. If you doubt the first statement, just read the mainstream literature about free trade. The benefits of free trade is one of the few unambiguous findings of economics.
Click to expand...

Now we can to some extent agree but that's a significantly different statement, unilateral was a key point.
 
PedroMendez said:
1) If every country in the world would drop all tariffs, every country would benefit. Thats not a controversal statement and backed up by the literature and understanding of the topic.
2) Doing it unilateral is somewhat different and slightly more nuanced.

feel free to question the second point. Thats fair enough. If you doubt the first statement, just read the mainstream literature about free trade. The benefits of free trade is one of the few unambiguous findings of economics.
Click to expand...

Point 1 only applies if everyone starts on a level playing field or reasonably level which is not the case worldwide.

Point 2 is suicidal doing it unilaterally.

Don't need theory - practical experience is much more useful. Minford is using theory. Let's all live in the real world.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Point 1 only applies if everyone starts on a level playing field or reasonably level which is not the case wordlwide.

Point 2 is suicidal doing it unilaterally.

Don't need theory - practical experience is much more useful. Minford is using theory. Let's all live in the real world.
Click to expand...

Point 1 is "easily" fixable by requiring licenses/quotas for every domestic production that you deem vulnerable or crucial, domestically.
 
JPRouve said:
Point 1 is "easily" fixable by requiring licenses for every domestic production that you deem vulnerable or crucial, domestically.
Click to expand...

We're into non-tariff barriers territory there.
And you'd be talking about free trade agreements

Having purely a blanket no tariff scenario is suicidal as everyone would have to agree and in the real world they won't.
 
Fiscal differences, quality differences, cultural differences, Educational differences, key product constrains, economic cylcles, peace-war situations, etc...


Worldwide free trade is bollocks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.