Maybe NO-BREXIT-DEAL is the best outcome.

[skepticalbip]

If no exit deal is made with the EU then there will be a 'hard exit' on 29th of March next year. The UK would lose the tariff free trade with the EU. The UK would just become like any other country that is not in the EU. The UK would then be free to negotiate trade deals with any or all countries in the rest of the world and would have full control of the laws within the UK and their borders.

The EU would loose its tariff free trade with the UK and their control of UK laws.

As I understand from outside (way outside), the original argument of the Brexit movement was that the Brexiters didn't think free trade within the union was worth the loss of their control of their government and the anti-Brexiters thought free trade within the block while ceding governance of the UK to Brussels was dandy.

It looks to me like the greatest stumbling block now is agreement of limits of free travel across the Ireland (EU) and Northern Ireland (UK) border.

But hey WTF, that is just my impression from well outside any of the fruckus going on there. I don't think that there would have been any movement in the UK if the system had remained as the EEC which was the original agreement. The evolution from EEC to EC and finally to the EU was apparently a step too far for the independent minded among the Brits.

That's 29 March THIS year. Ten weeks from now.

Not a lot of time in which to strike a deal - May's shit deal that got voted down by the biggest defeat in Commons history took twenty MONTHS to negotiate.

If by some miracle a new, less shit, deal materialised from thin air tomorrow, there would barely be time for parliament to debate and vote on it.


Oh, and don't make the common error of thinking that this had anything to do with the brits, or independent mindedness.

The whole clusterfuck started as an internal party political fight amongst a few hundred tory MPs, and was then blown up into an issue from nothing by a handful of wealthy racist cunts. The only contribution of the collective 'mind of the brits' to any of this was the switching off of critical thinking by a sizeable minority who don't like the number of Polish plumbers they are now encountering, because foreigners scare them.

Thanks. My understanding of the shit storm going on there is peripheral at best. Corrections are always appreciated.

Now I have to wonder what the chances are that this will re-ignite the Scottish independence movement.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The eventual outcome of unilateral free trade would turn out best -- or "greatest good for the greatest number"

If no exit deal is made with the EU then there will be a 'hard exit' on 29th of March next year. The UK would lose the tariff free trade with the EU. The UK would just become like any other country that is not in the EU. The UK would then be free to negotiate trade deals with any or all countries in the rest of the world and would have full control of the laws within the UK and their borders.

They have plenty of control now, to decide what to do, and they cannot decide. Why assume they will decide what new deals to negotiate, or what new laws to enact about borders? What if they still continue to squabble over this without any agreement?

If there's no agreement, but only continued squabbling, the real outcome is likely to become something closer to open borders and free trade.

In order to stop the migrants and the commerce, the government has to do something, by sending in the enforcers. But it can't do that if there's no agreement on what the new rules are, as they seem unable to agree, at present.

So then, what will actually happen? How can the government enforce laws that don't exist?

But on the other hand, no laws are needed in order for borders to be crossed and for commerce to flow. Why won't the migration and the commerce just happen, because there's nothing done to stop it? While there is agreement on things like terrorism and crime and other evils which will still be prevented by normal enforcement, which is agreed to.

The EU would lose its tariff free trade with the UK and their control of UK laws.

But there's no reason why any EU countries would lose their trade into the UK. If the UK isn't stopping the trade, those countries could continue to export to the UK. It might be unilateral free trade. While the UK would still try to persuade them to reciprocate. ALL Brits would want the government to at least try to persuade the other countries to reciprocate. So there would be some reciprocation, but also some unilateral free trade. Which might turn out to be best after all. No one has ever proved that unilateral free trade couldn't work to the benefit of the free-trade country taking in duty-free imports. Once it turns out that this really benefits the receiving country, the hysteria about "trade imbalance" etc. would die the death that it deserves.

So, the NO-BREXIT-DEAL might just turn out best for Britain, and for the world. Britain would end up learning this lesson -- that unilateral free trade can work for any country -- and eventually most countries would stop all this "trade deal" nonsense and just open their borders to free trade, without demanding reciprocation as a condition which other countries must first agree to.

Where is the fallacy in this prediction?

As I understand from outside (way outside), the original argument of the Brexit movement was that the Brexiters didn't think free trade within the union was worth the loss of their control of their government . . .

They would get their way, in the scenario I'm suggesting above -- the unilateral free trade outcome. They would have to accept the imports (cheap imports from them damn foreigners) into Britain (because nothing stops it), but the EU would no longer be imposing anything onto Britain, which is what they wanted. Meanwhile, some of those EU countries would reciprocate anyway, at least partly.

. . . and the anti-Brexiters thought free trade within the block while ceding governance of the UK to Brussels was dandy.

Some of these would benefit from the unilateral free trade, because they wanted the benefit of duty-free imports. Obviously it's not the ceding governance to Brussels which they wanted, so they wouldn't mind losing that. What some of them would mind is that the new free trade would be unilateral. But still, there would be some reciprocation from other countries. Eventually these anti-Brexiters would not be so unhappy with the outcome of unilateral free trade, which would turn out to be best after all, except for the few special interests who are made worse off by the globalism and competition which benefits all consumers and thus the nation as a whole.

It looks to me like the greatest stumbling block now is agreement of limits of free travel across the Ireland (EU) and Northern Ireland (UK) border.

Isn't it time for this petty squabbling to end? Are the Brits too immature to outgrow this?

For genuine prevention of crime and terrorism, there are plenty of adequate laws which the government could act upon in order to deal with border-crossing problems.

The evolution from EEC to EC and finally to the EU was apparently a step too far for the independent minded among the Brits.

With a unilateral free trade outcome, these Brits will mostly get what they wanted.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why wouldn't the result be free trade and open borders, by default?

And why wouldn't that be a GOOD result?

Not if Britain just does nothing about its borders, leaving them open so that migrants could freely enter.
<noise>

This statement is pretty much Lumpy declaring he is clearly clueless regarding just what the Brits voted for with the Brexit choice they made...

Lumpy, is there some alternate universe that also has a large Island named Britain?

What would Britain do about the migrants? It's not true that Brits overwhelmingly want to put a stop to migration. What if they cannot agree on limiting the migration?

There is already agreement on preventing crime and terrorism, so some kinds of migration would still be controlled based on that need, to limit real harm. But beyond that the Brits cannot seem to agree.

Or, even if they agree on some limits to the migration, the trade issues will go unresolved, as they are unresolved now. If they can't agree now, on a Brexit deal, why assume they can agree later on any general new trade and borders policy?

And with no agreement, what is to stop the migration and trade across the border? Why wouldn't the result be free trade and open borders? by default?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Unilateral free trade would work -- but there needs to be an experiment to give it a chance.

Not if Britain just does nothing about its borders, leaving them open so that migrants could freely enter....

True, but that will happen when pigs fly. There is absolutely no evidence that the British want open borders. One of the reasons Brexit passed was the rage against the open borders of the EU.

Let's assume the extreme, that all Brits hate them damn foreigners coming into their country. So, they are able to agree on this one point, to limit migration somewhat. But that still leaves free trade as a result because they could not agree on any new trade deal. If they cannot agree on a Brexit deal now, why assume they will agree on something later?

Why? What's stopping the trade if the British government doesn't stop it? or restrict it?

There are two issues for Britain: imports and exports. Britain can let all the imports it wants for free. But it is delusional to think the EU will allow Britain to trade without restrictions.

You mean exports FROM Britain. That would depend on each individual EU country. It might be UNILATERAL free trade, mostly. However, some EU countries would reciprocate, and it would be asinine of the EU to crack down on member nations agreeing to a deal with Britain.

Are you saying the EU prohibits any EU country from dealing with Switzerland, which is a non-member? That's silly. Of course a non-member can still trade with EU members. Even if there are limits, it is nonsensical to say the EU prohibits them from trading with any country not a member.

The point of the EU is not to PREVENT trade, but to encourage it. So it gets member nations to eliminate some of the restrictions on trade toward other members. But the members are mostly free to make deals to trade with other countries -- which they will do with Britain after it's no longer a member.

And it is delusional to think that most of the rest of the world will let British exports in with no restrictions or tariffs.

Some will, partly, reducing the restrictions and tariffs. Many will finally figure out that the trade barriers are generally beneficial only to a minority of special-interest parasitic uncompetitive crybabies, and harmful to the nation generally. The "rest of the world" is not as imbecilic as you're assuming. They can at least partly begin to realize that free trade does work, despite the paranoid nativist protectionist antiglobalist Bernie Sanders- and Donald Trump-type boneheads.

Why should the US or Kenya or China change its trade policy with Great Britain just because it is no longer in the EU?

They should all change their trade policy in the direction of lower barriers, to all other countries, regardless of anyone's membership in this or that trading bloc. Unilateral free trade would work best for any of them.

The EU does not dictate that its members may not trade with the US or Kenya or China.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Once Britain proves that unilateral free trade does work, some other countries will do the same.

If no exit deal is made with the EU then there will be a 'hard exit' on 29th of March next year. The UK would lose the tariff free trade with the EU. The UK would just become like any other country that is not in the EU. The UK would then be free to negotiate trade deals with any or all countries in the rest of the world and would have full control of the laws within the UK and their borders.

i.e. Britain will be "free" to trade with the world's low-wage, shit-working-conditions, child-labour-friendly shit holes, and British workers will be "free" to compete with them.

And EVERYONE will be made better off when this happens. Those poor countries -- those children and their families -- all will gain a higher standard of living as a result of this increased trade. All those shit-holes become better off, and less shitty, as a result of trading with the rich countries paying them higher wages than they would get otherwise. And those rich countries too are made better off.

It's a win-win when the rich countries trade with the shit-holes.

For trade with everywhere else, British trade will default to WTO conditions and HIGHER tariffs.

No, there's nothing about the WTO which requires higher tariffs. If Britain imposes any new tariffs, it will have to do so by choice. And how is that going to happen if the Brits cannot agree on any new trade deal? They can't agree on anything now, so why assume they'll agree on anything later, after exiting from the EU? Even if WTO rules take effect (which is not certain), that doesn't require any increase of Britain's tariffs.

We'll be free to request sweet deals, but we won't get them because it's in nowhere else's interests to give us sweet deals, especially once we're outside the EU.

Yes, but the result of that -- the DEFAULT outcome -- would likely be unilateral free trade. And some countries would reciprocate. It's not true that all countries are imbecilic and unable to recognize the benefits of free trade, and unable to recognize that lower trade barriers are in their interest, and thus to reciprocate. Some are intelligent enough to see that and would reduce their barriers to Britain.

True, some are too bone-headed to see the truth, but not all.

 

[laughing dog]

Let's assume the extreme, that all Brits hate them damn foreigners coming into their country. So, they are able to agree on this one point, to limit migration somewhat. But that still leaves free trade as a result because they could not agree on any new trade deal.

No, it does not leave free trade as a result. because Great Britain has no free trade deal with the EU. They will automatically be treated like a country that is not part of EU and who does not have a trade deal with the EU.

If they cannot agree on a Brexit deal now, why assume they will agree on something later?

At some point, the cost of no Brexit deal will mount up to force some sort of deal.

You mean exports FROM Britain.

Of course, that was exports mean - sending goods from a country.

That would depend on each individual EU country...

No. The EU is in charge of trade policy for all of its members. Individual countries are not permitted to make seperate deals. Individual countries can trade with non-EU members but that trade is governed by EU policy.

And it is delusional to think that most of the rest of the world will let British exports in with no restrictions or tariffs.

Some will, partly, reducing the restrictions and tariffs....

As I said, it is delusional to think that Brexit will cause other countries to rethink their trade policy with Great Britain.

They should all change their trade policy in the direction of lower barriers, to all other countries, regardless of anyone's membership in this or that trading bloc. Unilateral free trade would work best for any of them.

The EU does not dictate that its members may not trade with the US or Kenya or China.

No one claimed or even implied that. If those countries have a trade policy with Great Britain, those countries and Great Britain already trade with each other.
I asked why would the US or Kenya or China change its trade policy with Great Britain just because of Brexit?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Assuming this is a serious question, in the event of a "no-deal" Brexit British trade with the EU (and everybody else, since Britain has no separate trade agreements with anyone) will revert to WTO rules, with a prescribed set of tariffs on pretty much everything.

What?

How can the WTO prescribe any tariffs on Britain or any other country? Does the WTO have a trade police force going into countries and imposing tariffs onto them?

No.

Britain is a signatory to the Marrakesh Agreement, which established the WTO, and has therefore agreed to abide by its rules (when they are not superseded by other treaties).

Maybe, but there's nothing in the WTO rules requiring countries to impose tariffs. So Britain is not forced to impose any tariffs after Brexit.

So in order for it to impose any new tariffs, it would have to enact some new trade policy, which might not happen, because Brits can't agree. So the result would be -- unilateral free trade and open borders. I.e., the best result anyway, without any agreement.

Sometimes the BEST deal is NO deal. I.e., leading to the best outcome.

BUT, in case there is some WTO rule which would interfere with Britain dealing with some poor country, there would be no enforcement of such a rule. No nation would bring a case against Britain if it is dealing with a poor country and both countries are benefiting from it.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

In general, NO DEAL > unilateral free trade at first > more free trade as other countries reciprocate.

No, it does not leave free trade as a result, because Great Britain has no free trade deal with the EU.

I meant UNILATERAL free trade. Britain would open its market, but meanwhile some EU members would reciprocate and reduce their barriers to British imports. The EU would not prohibit members from trading with Britain, just as it does not prohibit them from trading with Switzerland.

They will automatically be treated like a country that is not part of EU and who does not have a trade deal with the EU.

Like Switzerland and other non-members. Not the end of the world, or an end to trade.

At some point, the cost of no Brexit deal will mount up to force some sort of deal.

There doesn't have to be a serious "cost" of no Brexit deal. Britain will become free of unwanted EU restrictions, and will trade anyway, unilaterally opening its market, and then some other countries will reciprocate, seeing that free trade (opening their market) is really in their interest.

The resulting "some sort of deal" will be new free trade arrangements starting with unilateral free trade and leading to many other countries doing something similar, or at least reciprocating by opening their market to Britain, since that is in their interest.

That would depend on each individual EU country...

No. The EU is in charge of trade policy for all of its members.

It does not prohibit any of them from opening its market to another country.

Individual countries are not permitted to make separate deals.

They are not prohibited from trading with other countries. They would trade with Britain even after Brexit. EU would not prohibit this. It could not, because the member nations don't want to prohibit trade.

Individual countries can trade with non-EU members but that trade is governed by EU policy.

That policy does not force them to impose tariffs. EU rules are aimed at REDUCING trade barriers, not imposing new barriers.

And it is delusional to think that most of the rest of the world will let British exports in with no restrictions or tariffs.

Some will, partly, reducing the restrictions and tariffs....

As I said, it is delusional to think that Brexit will cause other countries to rethink their trade policy with Great Britain.

Some of them will reciprocate to Britain's open market by opening their market. They don't care about "Brexit," but they care about trading, which they know benefits them, because they're not the idiots you think they are. So when they see that Britain is benefiting from unilateral free trade, they too will move in that direction.

There is no reason to think that the protectionists and corporate welfare goons and labor union crybabies have to prevail everywhere because all humans everywhere are stupid idiots who can never figure out what's really best for the country.

Some of them will start to realize that allowing more trade works best for all, and they will respond to Britain's open market by opening their own, partly at first, and then more, as they see that it's really in everyone's best interest.

 

[laughing dog]

I meant UNILATERAL free trade. Britain would open its market, but meanwhile some EU members would reciprocate and reduce their barriers to British imports. The EU would not prohibit members from trading with Britain, just as it does not prohibit them from trading with Switzerland.

You seem to be unable to understand that EU members trade with non-EU members under EU trade policy. EU countries do not have separate trade deals with non-EU countries. So, there would not be free trade with any EU member.

Whether Britain will open its markets to unfettered trade is a different question. Since there is no serious policy discussion now in Britain about unilaterally opening its markets, and since there is no reason that Britain's major non-EU trading partners will open their markets to free trade with Britain, your proposal is an example of ideogogical thinking trumping reality.

There doesn't have to be a serious "cost" of no Brexit deal.

There does in the real world becaue the EU is Britain's major trading partner.

It does not prohibit any of them from opening its market to another country.

Yes, it does.

 

[bilby]

This entire thread reads like a twelve year old's rant about how stupid people are for not implementing his new design for a perpetual motion machine.

'No deal' doesn't imply free trade. It would imply ZERO trade, but fortunately for the UK, it actually means falling back to the pre-existing WTO 'deal'.

No deal means no trade at all. As anyone who has ever haggled should be well aware.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Free trade is the default scenario. No law suppressing trade > de facto allowance and thus free trade.

I meant UNILATERAL free trade. Britain would open its market, but meanwhile some EU members would reciprocate and reduce their barriers to British imports. The EU would not prohibit members from trading with Britain, just as it does not prohibit them from trading with Switzerland.

You seem to be unable to understand that EU members trade with non-EU members under EU trade policy.

Sure, but that trade policy does not say they are prohibited from trading with non-members. They would trade with Britain without violating EU rules. Which rule would it violate if they traded with Britain?

EU countries do not have separate trade deals with non-EU countries.

Whether you call it "separate" or some other term, they do trade with non-EU countries. So, what prevents them from trading with Britain after Brexit? just like they trade with Switzerland and other non-EU countries?

So, there would not be free trade with any EU member.

There would be trade between Britain and EU members. Nothing about the EU prohibits them from trading with a non-EU member. They do it without violating EU rules.

You're suggesting that the EU would try to impose sanctions onto the members if they entered into trade with Britain, like Napoleon imposed the continental blockade against Britain. Do you think Europeans today have forgotten history? You think they want to sacrifice their interests like they did 200 years ago with Napoleon's blockade? It did not work then -- i.e., it made the Europeans worse off -- and wouldn't work any better today.

What is it about trade that makes you think it has to be shut down? or be made dependent on government enacting trade laws to make the trade possible?

Whether Britain will open its markets to unfettered trade is a different question.

It probably would not make any decision to do that, like it's not making any Brexit decision now. It can't agree on what to do. So it would not make any decision to "open its markets" or to close them.

So, with no decision either way, and no law saying the markets are open or closed, what is to prevent the trade from happening? If there's no law closing the market, prohibiting the trade, why couldn't the trade happen, because the dirty capitalist pigs want to make more money by trading? What would stop them, with no British law saying they can't ship anything into Britain? Why wouldn't the May government sit still and let the trade happen, since anything they do to stop it would not be authorized by a new trade law agreed to?

Since there is no serious policy discussion now in Britain about unilaterally opening its markets, . . .

There doesn't have to be. If they don't enact a new policy to close the market, what is to stop the imports from entering Britain? How can the trade be stopped if there's no law saying it has to be stopped? You're not considering what actually will happen.

The trade already exists, at present. So it could simply continue, as it already is happening. If nothing is passed by the British government closing its market and saying the trade is disallowed, what's to stop it from continuing? Maybe the EU countries exporting to Britain will hesitate, but at least some of them will try to resume/continue shipping to Britain, to see if they can continue the business. Why wouldn't they? If there's no British law being violated by it, what would be done by Britain to stop this from happening?

. . . and since there is no reason that Britain's major non-EU trading partners will open their markets to free trade with Britain, . . .

Eventually they might. It would be in their interest to do so. You can't insist that they're all stupid and would never be able to see the benefits of free trade.

But even if at first they keep their market closed, or limited, they would export to Britain, as long as Britain's market is open (or is not closed) because Parliament cannot decide what barriers to place against imports. If there are no barriers, why wouldn't those foreign companies want to ship to Britain, to make profit?

So they would take advantage of Britain's open market at first, and later some of them would see the benefit of free trade (because they're not stupid) and would open their own market more. What is to stop that from happening?

. . . your proposal is an example of ideological thinking trumping reality.

So, making profit is not real? You're saying it's unrealistic for capitalists to want to make profit by engaging in trade? Capitalists trying to make more money is contrary to reality?

There doesn't have to be a serious "cost" of no Brexit deal.

There does in the real world because the EU is Britain's major trading partner.

But that's why no-Brexit-deal doesn't have to mean an end to the trade or any serious cost, because the EU countries and Britain still want to do the trading, to continue the business, and the no-Brexit-deal allows the trade to continue. If there's no deal, what is the obstacle to the trade continuing? Why can't the companies continue trading in order to continue making the profit? If Britain does nothing to stop it, what's going to stop it?

No Brexit deal just means some adjusting, and some waiting at first to see what happens, but soon they will try to export to Britain, to see if they can continue to make profit. Why wouldn't they, if there's no new regime in place to prevent it?

It's because of the importance of the trade, the profits they've been making, that they will want to continue the trading. So, why wouldn't they try to if nothing prevents it? What would prevent it, if there's no deal agreed to by Britain?

It does not prohibit any of them from opening its market to another country.

Yes, it does.

Name an EU country which was prevented by the EU from opening its market to another country even though it wanted to and tried to?

You're imagining that the role of the EU is to prevent undesirable trade from happening, but that's not what a trading bloc is about. It's about forcing the members to open their markets more and to reduce or eliminate tariffs toward the other members. I.e., reciprocal open markets or free trade toward the other members. That does not mean requiring them to impose any tariffs or barriers to trade. It doesn't mean they're forced to impose barriers against non-members.

What's an example where the EU prevented member nations from engaging in trade, or forced them to increase their barriers, such as tariffs?

 

[bilby]

Free trade is not the default scenario, and it has never existed in all of human history.

Trade has always been regulated by an authority, since the very beginning of trade between humans.

Early tribes didn't trade - they provided stuff to all members, provided by whoever could get stuff for the tribe.

When they started to trade, the chiefs did the deals, and the individuals did as they were bloody well told by the chiefs.

Eventually this developed into the feudal system, with kings, lords, and guilds dictating the terms of trade in every market.

Now we have governments that dictate the terms of trade both foreign and domestic.

Free trade is a fantasy, and has never once been attempted in the entire history of mankind. It's as far from being the 'default' as it could possibly be.

 

[funinspace]

This entire thread reads like a twelve year old's rant about how stupid people are for not implementing his new design for a perpetual motion machine.

Welcome to Lumpy's World where nothing is real...Strawberry Fields forever.

'No deal' doesn't imply free trade. It would imply ZERO trade, but fortunately for the UK, it actually means falling back to the pre-existing WTO 'deal'.

No deal means no trade at all. As anyone who has ever haggled should be well aware.

Unfortunately, repeating the obvious doesn't seem to slow down the word salad diarrhea...

 

[laughing dog]

Sure, but that trade policy does not say they are prohibited from trading with non-members. They would trade with Britain without violating EU rules. Which rule would it violate if they traded with Britain? ....

The EU negotiates trade deals with non-EU member states. EU members states trade with non-EU member states. EU member states are not permitted to have separate trade deals with non-EU members - they trade under the EU terms.

Hence your response is based willful and persist ignorance. Britain can only engage in unfettered free trade with the EU in one direction - letting in imports. EU member states cannot make a separate deal with Britain. And the EU has absolutely no reason to make a free trade deal with Britain because it would undermine one of the major reasons for member states to stay in the EU.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Is trade impossible unless government/WTO/EU enacts a law allowing the trade to happen?

How did dinosaurs come to exist, before there were human governments to pass a law allowing them to exist?

This entire thread reads like a twelve year old's rant about how stupid people are for not implementing his new design for a perpetual motion machine.

Why is there no perpetual motion machine? Is it because government, or the EU, failed to enact a law to implement such a thing? Why do you think nothing in the world can exist unless the EU or the British Parliament enacts a law implementing it?

This thread is about no law existing to prevent something. I.e., it's about NO BREXIT DEAL. The Brits so far are unable to agree on what the new trade laws will be. What if they cannot decide on anything for lack of agreement? What happens then? You're not answering this question.

What is there in the law, after BREXIT, which says British companies may not trade or deal with foreign companies, like in the EU? What law will prevent these companies from resuming that trade?

Suppose a cargo ship from an EU country arrives in England to do its business, dropping off cargo which is wanted by consumers in Britain? What will stop it from being unloaded and shipped as it has been in the past?

'No deal' doesn't imply free trade.

The term is "No BREXIT deal" -- not "no deal" between the dirty capitalist pigs in Britain and the dirty capitalist pigs from France or other EU country. Suppose those dirty capitalist pigs have a "deal" between them, as they already do now, and simply want to continue it. Or resume it -- business as usual. Since there's no BREXIT deal or law saying the dirty capitalist pigs may not do this business, then what is to prevent the dirty capitalist pigs from doing what they want to do, and continuing the trade anyway?

The No-Brexit-deal implies there's nothing in place to prohibit these dirty capitalist pigs from continuing the trading, as it had been before. What is in place to stop these dirty capitalist pigs from carrying on their dirty capitalist trading crimes of serving the consumers who want those dirty capitalist pig imports? How do you propose to stop this capitalist pig criminal activity from resuming, if there's no law in place to restrict them?

It would imply ZERO trade, but fortunately for the UK, it actually means falling back to the pre-existing WTO 'deal'.

Maybe, but what WTO law says companies or countries may not trade with other countries, or that they must be subject to barriers imposed by WTO rules?

There have been many WTO disputes taken to the WTO "courts" where they are adjudicated. Can you name any case where a country was charged with violating WTO rules forbidding trade? forbidding this country from accepting imports from another country wanting to trade with it?

What are the WTO rules forbidding trade from taking place? ANY kind of trade? between ANY countries?

Don't you know what WTO rules are about? They are about requiring countries to accept imports from other countries which are members of the WTO, because every member is required to REDUCE or ELIMINATE trade barriers against other nations -- that is, other member nations. They come together and agree to each open their market to the other, as a reciprocal benefit, so they both gain from the trade. Because otherwise each has its own barriers to trade, to protect its domestic industries, and yet each wants the other to open its market. So they both agree to reduce or eliminate the barriers, for the mutual benefit.

In WTO there is NO RULE FORBIDDING trade between member nations, or between a member and a non-member nation. The WTO and the EU and NAFTA and other trading blocs are not about forbidding trade between any nation and another nation. They are about requiring the member nations to open their markets to other member nations. They are about promoting or allowing more trade, and requiring (member) nations to reduce their barriers so that more trade can take place. Which makes all nations better off.

No deal means no trade at all.

You keep forgetting the title of this topic: NO-BREXIT-DEAL. That's what "No deal" means. Why can't you make your point without distorting what our topic is about? Do you have a problem with identifying what NO-BREXIT-DEAL means? Do you understand that there is this country, called England, or Britain, which is trying to decide how to do trade in the future after it exits from the EU? It's that "deal" or new arrangement they are trying to decide on and which is the topic of this discussion.

If no such new trade law or BREXIT deal is decided upon, what will happen afterwards between the companies which are now trading? i.e., British companies and those from other EU countries. Why can't you figure out what I'm asking?

These companies will not disappear after BREXIT happens. They will still be there. They did not need the EU in order to exist. The consumers they are serving will still be there. What is to happen to these companies and those consumers? Why are you unable to address this?

As anyone who has ever haggled should be well aware.

But this time it's the politicians who are doing the haggling. While the companies and the consumers, the buyers and sellers, the dirty capitalist pigs -- all of them are doing business now, past the haggling period, and they have agreed terms for buying and selling the stuff. So they're not the ones haggling, and they can do the "deal" they want, regardless whether the politicians ever settle their haggling, which is separate from the haggling of the buyers and sellers and producers and dirty capitalist pigs.

What is going to stop these dirty capitalists from resuming their dirty capitalist criminal mischief if there's no Brexit deal agreed to which would impose the new terms to control and prevent them from trading?

Or, what WTO rules are going to stop these dirty capitalists? Can you name any case ever where the WTO stepped in and prohibited member nations from carrying on any trade?

If those capitalists from Britain and some EU country resume their trading, how do you think the WTO would propose to stop them? or would even want to? Don't you know that there can be no case before the WTO which is not brought by one member nation against another?

So, who is going to bring the case before the WTO to have it decided? Each country involved will want the trade to continue. So why would either Britain or the EU country bring a case before the WTO to be adjudicated, when there is no dispute between them?

 

[skepticalbip]

Sure, but that trade policy does not say they are prohibited from trading with non-members. They would trade with Britain without violating EU rules. Which rule would it violate if they traded with Britain? ....

The EU negotiates trade deals with non-EU member states. EU members states trade with non-EU member states. EU member states are not permitted to have separate trade deals with non-EU members - they trade under the EU terms.

Hence your response is based willful and persist ignorance. Britain can only engage in unfettered free trade with the EU in one direction - letting in imports. EU member states cannot make a separate deal with Britain. And the EU has absolutely no reason to make a free trade deal with Britain because it would undermine one of the major reasons for member states to stay in the EU.

That isn't quite true. The EU makes trade deals with other countries around the world, each one different. If the EU governors decide that they want tariff free trade with the UK so that their exports from the EU will be more cost competitive in the UK then such a deal could be struck. I don't expect that to happen though even if such a deal could possibly be better for the populations of both the UK and EU.

 

[laughing dog]

Sure, but that trade policy does not say they are prohibited from trading with non-members. They would trade with Britain without violating EU rules. Which rule would it violate if they traded with Britain? ....

The EU negotiates trade deals with non-EU member states. EU members states trade with non-EU member states. EU member states are not permitted to have separate trade deals with non-EU members - they trade under the EU terms.

Hence your response is based willful and persist ignorance. Britain can only engage in unfettered free trade with the EU in one direction - letting in imports. EU member states cannot make a separate deal with Britain. And the EU has absolutely no reason to make a free trade deal with Britain because it would undermine one of the major reasons for member states to stay in the EU.

That isn't quite true. The EU makes trade deals with other countries around the world, each one different. If the EU governors decide that they want tariff free trade with the UK so that their exports from the EU will be more cost competitive in the UK then such a deal could be struck. I don't expect that to happen though even if such a deal could possibly be better for the populations of both the UK and EU.

Nothing you wrote address my observation that the EU has no incentive to make a free trade deal with Britain because it would undermine one of the major reasons for member states to stay in the EU.

 

[skepticalbip]

That isn't quite true. The EU makes trade deals with other countries around the world, each one different. If the EU governors decide that they want tariff free trade with the UK so that their exports from the EU will be more cost competitive in the UK then such a deal could be struck. I don't expect that to happen though even if such a deal could possibly be better for the populations of both the UK and EU.

Nothing you wrote address my observation that the EU has no incentive to make a free trade deal with Britain because it would undermine one of the major reasons for member states to stay in the EU.

The purpose of the EU in trade deals is to protect industries within the union. If the governors decide that imports from the UK doesn't threaten industries in member states then there would be no reason not to make a trade deal that is most beneficial to the EU. I certainly don't expect that they will, however. The EU has many trade deals with countries outside the union and so imports many products from outside the union. A trade deal with the UK would just be one more trade deal and can be one that best benefits the EU, even if that turns out to be a tariff free deal.

 

[laughing dog]

That isn't quite true. The EU makes trade deals with other countries around the world, each one different. If the EU governors decide that they want tariff free trade with the UK so that their exports from the EU will be more cost competitive in the UK then such a deal could be struck. I don't expect that to happen though even if such a deal could possibly be better for the populations of both the UK and EU.

Nothing you wrote address my observation that the EU has no incentive to make a free trade deal with Britain because it would undermine one of the major reasons for member states to stay in the EU.

The purpose of the EU in trade deals is to protect industries within the union.

That is one of many reasons.

If the governors decide that imports from the UK doesn't threaten industries in member states then there would be no reason not to make a trade deal that is most beneficial to the EU.

There are no governors of the EU. Any such deal has to approved all countries.

I certainly don't expect that they will, however. The EU has many trade deals with countries outside the union and so imports many products from outside the union. A trade deal with the UK would just be one more trade deal and can be one that best benefits the EU, even if that turns out to be a tariff free deal.

Free trade exists within the EU already. Granting Britain the same trading rights and privileges as EU members undermines one of the reasons to remain in the EU. There are a growing number populist EU countries that chafe at EU rules, and granting Britain (an EU exiter) the same trading privileges as an EU member gives those countries a larger incentive to leave. It ought to be obvious the EU has no incentive to promote more problems within the EU, so the EU has no incentive to give Britain free trade with the EU. Nothing you have written addresses that fundamental point.

 

[skepticalbip]

The purpose of the EU in trade deals is to protect industries within the union.

That is one of many reasons.

If the governors decide that imports from the UK doesn't threaten industries in member states then there would be no reason not to make a trade deal that is most beneficial to the EU.

There are no governors of the EU. Any such deal has to approved all countries.

The governors are those EU officials in Brussels that decide on such as trade deals with other countries for the EU.

I certainly don't expect that they will, however. The EU has many trade deals with countries outside the union and so imports many products from outside the union. A trade deal with the UK would just be one more trade deal and can be one that best benefits the EU, even if that turns out to be a tariff free deal.

Free trade exists within the EU already.

??? of course it does. What does this have to do with trade negotiations with countries outside the EU?

Granting Britain the same trading rights and privileges as EU members undermines one of the reasons to remain in the EU. There are a growing number populist EU countries that chafe at EU rules, and granting Britain (an EU exiter) the same trading privileges as an EU member gives those countries a larger incentive to leave. It ought to be obvious the EU has no incentive to promote more problems within the EU, so the EU has no incentive to give Britain free trade with the EU. Nothing you have written addresses that fundamental point.

There are a hell of a lot of reasons that a country would want to remain in the EU other than the free trade within the union. If the EU would consider levying heavy tariffs on imports other than to protect the EU's industry then that should be one consideration for one of the EU's member states to leave. Why the fuck would anyone want to pay much more for their purchases in their local store when that added cost is not there to defend their industries and so their jobs?