Maybe NO-BREXIT-DEAL is the best outcome.

[laughing dog]

That is one of many reasons.
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.

Those agreements typically require ratification by the member states.

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...

And there are plenty of reasons to out of the EU. If you eliminate one of the major reasons to stay in the EU, then clearly there is less incentive for members to remain in the EU. And there are countries edging towards an exit already, the EU has no incentive to voluntarily reduce their incentives to stay and reward a country that is leaving with a free trade deal. Moreover, since the Brexit deal that was defeated did not include free trade, why would anyone think that the EU would now offer free trade to Britain? The notion that the EU at this time would agree to a free trade with Britain is crazy thinking.

 

[skepticalbip]

Those agreements typically require ratification by the member states.

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...

And there are plenty of reasons to out of the EU. If you eliminate one of the major reasons to stay in the EU, then clearly there is less incentive for members to remain in the EU. And there are countries edging towards an exit already, the EU has no incentive to voluntarily reduce their incentives to stay and reward a country that is leaving with a free trade deal. Moreover, since the Brexit deal that was defeated did not include free trade, why would anyone think that the EU would now offer free trade to Britain? The notion that the EU at this time would agree to a free trade with Britain is crazy thinking.

Are you claiming that paying higher prices for goods in the local store just for the sake of the EU levying high tariffs that do not benefit EU industry is a reason for a country to remain in the EU?

 

[laughing dog]

Those agreements typically require ratification by the member states.

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...

And there are plenty of reasons to out of the EU. If you eliminate one of the major reasons to stay in the EU, then clearly there is less incentive for members to remain in the EU. And there are countries edging towards an exit already, the EU has no incentive to voluntarily reduce their incentives to stay and reward a country that is leaving with a free trade deal. Moreover, since the Brexit deal that was defeated did not include free trade, why would anyone think that the EU would now offer free trade to Britain? The notion that the EU at this time would agree to a free trade with Britain is crazy thinking.

Are you claiming that paying higher prices for goods in the local store just for the sake of the EU levying high tariffs that do not benefit EU industry is a reason for a country to remain in the EU?

I have no idea why you are babbling about higher prices in local stores. That has nothing whatsoever to do with EU incentives to offer a free trade deal with Britain.

 

[skepticalbip]

Are you claiming that paying higher prices for goods in the local store just for the sake of the EU levying high tariffs that do not benefit EU industry is a reason for a country to remain in the EU?

I have no idea why you are babbling about higher prices in local stores. That has nothing whatsoever to do with EU incentives to offer a free trade deal with Britain.

Tariffs are paid by the consumer of the imported goods not by the exporter. It is always the end consumer that ultimately pays any tariff, tax, or duty. A tariff that is not in place to protect a country's industry serves no purpose other than to increase prices to its citizens. Check the price charged to a buyer of a Harley in the U.S. and in the EU. You will find that the European price reflects the tariff levied on that Harley.

Maybe you remember the complaints about Trump's steel tariffs was that they increased the price of imported steel to the consumers here in the US. That is because the US consumers were the ones who had to pay that price, not the exporting country.

Tariffs on imports increase the selling price to the end consumer which makes the domestically produced products much cheaper in comparison so protects the domestic industry since the price difference makes their products more appealing.

 

[laughing dog]

Are you claiming that paying higher prices for goods in the local store just for the sake of the EU levying high tariffs that do not benefit EU industry is a reason for a country to remain in the EU?

I have no idea why you are babbling about higher prices in local stores. That has nothing whatsoever to do with EU incentives to offer a free trade deal with Britain.

Tariffs are paid by the consumer of the imported goods not by the exporter. It is always the end consumer that ultimately pays any tariff, tax, or duty. A tariff that is not in place to protect a country's industry serves no purpose other than to increase prices to its citizens. Check the price charged to a buyer of a Harley in the U.S. and in the EU. You will find that the European price reflects the tariff levied on that Harley.

Maybe you remember the complaints about Trump's steel tariffs was that they increased the price of imported steel to the consumers here in the US. That is because the US consumers were the ones who had to pay that price, not the exporting country.

Tariffs on imports increase the selling price to the end consumer which makes the domestically produced products much cheaper in comparison so protects the domestic industry since the price difference makes their products more appealing.

For some reason you continue to fixate on this irrelevant topic.

The EU did not offer free trade to Britain that was rejected. The EU is no reason to improve the terms of the deal for Britain since
1) the EU wants to make it harder and more costly for leavers (i.e. make an example of Britain), and
2) if it makes that deal with Britain, but the terms of the WTO, it has to offer that to everyone else or basically make the WTO pointless.

 

[Jayjay]

The reason why EU won't have free trade with Britain is much simpler: if Britain wants to negotiate it's own trade deals with third parties, then it would potentially become a passthrough state for imports from those third parties. You can't be inside a tariff union without also having unified tariffs (and trade deals) with outsiders. Norway is an example of a non-EU state that has free trade with EU at the expense of not being able to have its own trade deals. But the UK doesn't want to be Norway.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Trading has happened historically without an EU or government passing a law to allow it.

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

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

That's an outburst like "Democracy has never existed" or "Justice has never existed" or "Peace has never existed" or "Liberty has never existed" or "Beauty" or "Happiness" or "Fairness" or "Honesty" or "Equality" have never existed. Every attempt to make these happen falls short, so they're never achieved, ideally.

But today Singapore, and some other nations, are close to free trade. While North Korea and Myanmar are far from it, while S. Korea and Japan are somewhere in between. It is a practical goal to move toward, like democracy and justice etc. are practical possibilities. The ancient Phoenicians achieved relative free trade for their time. The U.S. today is much closer to free trade today than it was in the 1920s when increasing trade barriers helped bring on the Great Depression and make it the worst depression in history.

If there's NO BREXIT DEAL, but Britain does exit the EU, what will be the result? What will be the new laws on trade which will prevent Britain from trading, or prevent an EU country from trading with Britain? If nothing prevents the trading, then why would it stop? Why would those doing the trading stop doing it if nothing forces them to stop? If there's no law saying they cannot, why would they stop trading?

Even if the WTO rules take effect, where is the WTO law saying countries may not trade? Which WTO rule forbids Britain from trading with an EU country?

What EU rule would prohibit an EU country from continuing to trade with Britain? No one is answering this. Why does an EU country need the EU to pass some law permitting it to trade? When was an EU country prohibited by the EU from trading with another country it wanted to trade with?

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

No, not always. And when it was regulated it was still promoted, and many of the barriers were actually reduced by the regulations, rather than increased. I.e., the tariffs have been reduced by the trade agreements, as the regulations are mainly limits to the tariffs.

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.

Your bed-time stories don't connect to the real world scenario today. There is trading today between Britain and other EU countries. What will happen after Brexit, when there is no law prescribing the trade terms for Britain?

Who are these "chiefs" today and how will they impose restrictions on the trade?

You are not connecting your bed-time fairy tales to today's real world, where the trade is fact, not fiction, and no one is saying how this trade is going to be stopped by any "chiefs" imposing their "deals" onto someone.

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

No, there were many cases of haggling, between just the traders, with no higher power deciding the terms. There was no linear process where "this" developed into a single rigid "system" in "every" market. There were many systems and different kinds of markets, not one single system "dictating" the terms everywhere.

When you're done spinning your yarns, how about answering what is going to prevent today's trading between UK and EU from continuing on after Brexit. When those ships from EU countries are entering British ports, who is going to stop them? Whose navy is going to try to sink those ships?

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

No, the prices are set by the market in the richest countries. You're thinking of the Soviet Union, where the government pretended to make all the decisions and impose prices and terms onto all production. But history shows that the black market in that country triumphed by doing a much better job of serving consumers, in defiance of terms imposed from the "chiefs."

Maybe sometimes a black market has to be suppressed, such as for prohibited substances or illegal weapons, etc., but the existence of black markets disproves your bed-time stories about the governments and "chiefs" always imposing the terms and controlling the trade.

Free trade is a fantasy, and has never once been attempted in the entire history of mankind.

Neither has true Democracy ever been attempted in all history. Your obsessing on abstract Absolute Platonic Forms is not useful in the world of actual decision-making.

Several countries chose "free trade" as a policy, which meant that trade increased, barriers were removed, tariffs were reduced or even eliminated, and global competition was chosen as best for serving consumers. None did this to the extreme, but many went in this direction. Singapore is probably the best example, and its living standard is about the highest in the world, as a result of opening its market.

It's as far from being the 'default' as it could possibly be.

Again, the repeated appearance of black markets disproves your fairy tales.

If there's NO BREXIT DEAL, and Britain exits the EU, what will be the authority imposed to stop the trading which is going on now? Are you saying all the capitalists will suddenly disappear, or turn into pumpkins, like Cinderella's carriage, when the clock strikes 12 (or when the sun rises on March 29)?

The trading is like a train, already moving fast, benefiting millions of buyers and sellers who are dependent on it. How is it going to stop if there is nothing put there by someone to stop it? The Brits cannot agree on what new barrier to put in place to stop the trading, or restrict it. And there's no EU law prohibiting an EU country from continuing to trade with Britain.

The EU has never imposed sanctions onto an EU member for trading with someone they were not supposed to trade with.

It's not true that any entity like WTO or EU wants to prevent a country from trading with another. That's not what these entities were created for. Their function is to force countries to reduce their trade barriers, not make them erect barriers.

There are calls for sanctions on EU countries which violate European values. https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/67941 , and also on countries in general which do criminal acts. But otherwise there's nothing about punishing a country for trading outside the EU. Any EU country now trading with Britain could continue doing so after Brexit -- there's nothing in place preventing that trade from continuing.

The idea of sanctioning or punishing a member for trading with someone they're not supposed to trade with does not make any sense. There is nothing in the EU "laws" which prohibits a member nation from trading with a non-member or continuing to trade with a country which withdraws from the EU.

If a nation should engage in torture as a business, or trafficking in slaves, etc., the EU would condemn it and "forbid" members from such trading, but that's different than legitimate trade with a non-member or former member which exited, which doesn't violate any rules and has never been punished. No EU action has ever been taken to punish such a member.

A member nation is not prohibited from trading with a non-member, regardless whether the EU enacted anything to allow the trade. Suppressing trade is not the function of the EU.

Though the EU negotiates trade deals for member nations, this does not mean that an EU member is prohibited from doing any trade without the EU arranging the deal or permitting it. You can't name any case where the EU prohibited a member from doing its own deal not arranged by the EU.

Such separate deals between British companies and EU countries are likely to happen after Brexit and no new trade law agreed to. The trade is already happening.

No one can give any reason why this trading would have to stop.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The EU has no need to re-impose Napoleon's blockade of Britain.

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.

How does that prohibit an EU member, or company in that country, from trading with a British company? If that company ships something to Britain, how does the EU stop it? Why would it even try to stop it? What would be the point? When has the EU ever tried to prohibit any EU member from trading with another country?

EU members states trade with non-EU member states. EU member states are not permitted to have separate trade deals with non-EU members -

You mean some member states tried to do it and were invaded by an EU army and the traders were shot? What is it that happened to stop a member state from trading without the EU's permission?

If that company tries to export to Britain, and the cargo ships enter British ports, what does the EU do about it? Why would the EU want to stop it? Why would either that member state or Britain try to prevent it, as they both benefit from the trade?

If this happened, what would be the crisis requiring anything to be done about it? The ending of the trade would be a loss for both countries. Their interest would be to allow the trade to happen, while the EU could have no interest in stopping the trade. The EU does not suppress trade, but only requires member states to reduce or eliminate their barriers to trade from other member states. When did the EU ever take action to prevent a member state from trading?

- they trade under the EU terms.

It doesn't violate EU terms for a member state to do trade with another country. What violates EU terms is a member state erecting barriers to another EU member. There are no EU rules forbidding a member state to lower its barriers. Trading blocs/agreements are not entered into for the purpose of suppressing trade, but to enable the members to reduce the barriers mutually, through reciprocation.

Hence your response is based willful and persist ignorance.

No, it's based on your failure to answer what would happen if an EU member chooses to trade with Britain when it's in their interest to do so, and the EU has no need to try to prevent that trade from taking place. And your failure to give any example when the EU ever tried to prevent a member state from trading with another country. Or to answer why the EU would try to. Stopping trade is not something the EU has a need to do.

Britain can only engage in unfettered free trade with the EU in one direction - letting in imports.

It could also export to an EU nation which chooses to allow the trade, opening its market at a low or zero tariff level. The EU has never tried to prevent a member state from lowering its tariff. What it disallows members to do is increase their tariffs above the maximum level agreed to.

EU member states cannot make a separate deal with Britain.

You can repeat those words in the abstract, but the reality is that if the trade takes place, the EU would do nothing to stop it, and could not stop it. It would not send in its navy to sink those ships.

The EU's function is to negotiate deals to REDUCE trade barriers, not increase them.

Repeating abstract rules about what can or cannot be done doesn't answer why the EU would try to stop this trading, or how it would stop it, and also why these dirty capitalist pigs would not try to continue the trading which is profitable to both sides and beneficial to all and harmful to no one.

And the EU has absolutely no reason to make a free trade deal with Britain because . . .

But it also has no reason to prohibit any trade between Britain and an EU member, so it would not. When did the EU ever prohibit trade between any countries? Its function is to prohibit or reduce the BARRIERS to trade, not to erect trade barriers which it would then enforce onto countries to prevent them from trading.

. . . it would undermine one of the major reasons for member states to stay in the EU.

No, they still have the main motive to stay in: they want other nations to keep their market open to them, which the rules require -- i.e., all members must keep their trade barriers below the maximum allowed by the rules.

This requirement is not violated by Britain and an EU country choosing to trade, so there's nothing being undermined and no reason for the EU to try to suppress this trade.

 

[laughing dog]

How does that prohibit an EU member, or company in that country, from trading with a British company? .

You keep repeating that straw man. EU trade policy means that EU member states trade with non-member states under the deal the EU made. Individual member states of the EU do not make separate deals with non-members. That means that EU member states might trade with Britain, but only under the terms of any EU deal. If there is no EU deal, the EU might set a trade policy with Britain that is, at best, consistent WTO rules.

The EU has no incentive to make a free trade deal with Britain. The deal that was rejected did not include free trade, and Britain is already unwilling to add to any potential deal that might induce free trade with the EU.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

BREXIT + NO DEAL = anything goes = same trade continues. Who's going to stop this trade from continuing?

Trade was happening before the EU. The earth was rotating on its axis. After BREXIT, what's going to interrupt trade with Britain, or stop the earth from rotating?

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.

No one is saying that the EU would grant Britain the same trading rights or privileges as EU members.

Has the EU granted you the right to post messages on this website? No. And yet you post. It is not true that a country or individual has to first be granted a right to do something by the EU in order to be able to do it. No one is saying the EU would "grant" anything.

And yet, trade with Britain might happen, or continue, even after Brexit. WITHOUT THE EU GRANTING ANYTHING!

Why does the EU have to grant anything? Why couldn't some EU member states still continue trading with Britain? You are not answering this question.

Are you saying the EU would punish any such member? When has the EU ever punished a member state because it traded with someone? That's not what the EU does.

The trade with Britain is already happening, under the EU rules. But after Brexit, there is nothing to prevent that trade from continuing, without any special action by the EU. What prevents it from continuing? That is the question, and you're not answering it.

The question is not what prevents the EU from granting free trade to Britain, or to an EU member trading with Britain. No one is suggesting the EU would grant anything. Things can still happen without the EU "granting" it.

So, what could happen is that the trade already going on will simply continue because there is no reason for it to stop. Why couldn't this trade continue? Why would the companies doing it stop? And if they should continue, what would anyone do to stop it?

You're not answering this.

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.

Don't worry -- the EU won't grant any such "privileges" to anyone. But what might happen is that the trade now happening will just continue happening, with the EU granting nothing.

What's to stop that?

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.

Of course it won't. No one anywhere is going to "give" free trade to anyone else. But meanwhile, after March 29 when Brexit happens, what if the trade happening now simply continues anyway? Why would it stop? Why would those dirty capitalist pigs decide to stop doing something which is profitable? If cargo ships from some EU countries continue importing into Britain, and the business continues, who is going to send out gunboats to try to sink them? or do anything else to suppress those dirty capitalists from doing their business of serving consumers and making more money?

Nothing you have written addresses that fundamental point.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why can't the trade just continue, without the EU first agreeing to let it happen? or rewarding someone with a "deal"?

And there are countries edging towards an exit already, the EU has no incentive to voluntarily reduce their incentives to stay and reward a country that is leaving with a free trade deal.

It won't "reward" anyone with any free trade deal. That's undisputed.

But what might happen, if there's NO DEAL after BREXIT, is that the current trade (or some of it) between Britain and EU members might continue. Because there is no reason for the traders to stop. What would be their reason? The trade is profitable. And neither Britain or the EU member has an incentive to stop this trade which is mutually beneficial.

So, if they continue trading, despite BREXIT, what would happen to stop that trading? Why would anyone try to stop it? Would Britain send its navy out to sink those cargo ships coming from an EU member? Why? It could, of course, but what reason would it have to do such a thing? What reason would any nation, or the EU, have to do anything to suppress that trade?

And the trade might even go from Britain to those countries, or some of them. Maybe a "deal" would happen de facto without any formal "free trade deal" between them, because they would just be continuing the trade as it is done already, before BREXIT.

Moreover, since the Brexit deal that was defeated did not include free trade, why would anyone think that the EU would now offer free trade to Britain?

Assuming there is no deal at all, other than just the decision to continue the present trading, there is no need for the EU to "offer" anything in order for the trading to continue.

So, what is to prevent the trading from just continuing as it is happening now? How would BREXIT stop this trade from continuing, business as usual?

The notion that the EU at this time would agree to a free trade with Britain is crazy thinking.

Why do you think nothing can happen in the world unless the EU first agrees to it?

Why couldn't the trading just continue, without any agreement by the EU?

 

[jonatha]

Because there is no reason for the traders to stop. What would be their reason? The trade is profitable.

Trade that is profitable in the absence of tariffs may not be profitable when WTO rates are imposed, or may not be sufficiently profitable to justify keeping production in the UK rather than moving it to the continent.

 

[laughing dog]

It won't "reward" anyone with any free trade deal. That's undisputed.

Apparently not, since your OP is based on Britain engaging in free trade with the EU under a Brexit

But what might happen, if there's NO DEAL after BREXIT, is that the current trade (or some of it) between Britain and EU members might continue.

It might but it will not be free trade. For some reason, you refuse to acknowledge or understand that EU members trade under EU policy - they do not make separate deals. That is part of membership agreement in the EU. Just like individual states in the US do not print their own currency because it is part of the membership agreement to be in the USA.

 

[bilby]

The EU also requires all members to meet certain specified quality standards for a whole range of goods and services. By doing so, they allow other members with whom they trade to dispense with checks of quality at the border.

So, for example, a container of pig carcasses being shipped from the UK to France today doesn't need to be inspected by a French vet; An aircraft certified as airworthy in the UK need not also be certified by Germany before being allowed to overfly German airspace; And the UK air traffic system complies with international laws, because the EU enforces rules that it has certified to the ICAO as compliant with their rules.

After Brexit, all of these agreements and assurances are legally void. They must be re-established in some way - for example, the UK could allow EU vets to inspect its slaughtering and meat handling processes, or the French could just inspect every meat shipment. But the former requires that the UK continues to comply with EU law (despite having no say in it, having lost their seats in the EU parliament and European Commission); And the latter implies MASSIVE delays at Dover and/or Calais, plus significant additional expenses.

The UK will need its own Civil Aviation Authority too. But the one it has is far too small, and has far too few qualified people, to simply take over the certifications currently provided by the EU. Given a few months (or more likely years), they can restore their ICAO certification. In the meantime, how many US airlines are going to be happy to fly through (or to) UK airspace, when their insurance will be voided by so doing? Sure, it's probably safe enough; But like a driver who has the ability to drive, but no license to do so, the insurers won't accept this assertion. Insurers require lawful certifications.

And these are just a couple of examples. The system will collapse, unless dozens of similar issues are addressed, completely and in full, before Brexit takes effect. There's no way that could be achieved in two years; But now there are only two months left.

The rantings of idiots notwithstanding, this can't fail to be a massive clusterfuck.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

After Brexit', who's going to force Britain to stop trading with EU nations? or stop cargo ships from going to Britain?

Is the President of the European Council going to wave his magic wand and turn all those ships into pumpkins?

The reason why EU won't have free trade with Britain is much simpler: if . . .

That's not what would happen. What would happen is that the current trade going on would just continue, i.e., some of it, so that there would still be trading between Britain and some EU members (maybe not all). This might be "free trade" or at least with low tariffs, maybe just continuing the present levels, with individual EU states. It would not be "free trade" between the EU and Britain.

There's no way to predict how "free" the trade would be, or the tariff levels, but there's no reason all this trade has to stop. Both Britain and those EU states want to continue that trade, which is mutually beneficial and profitable to the companies, who want it to continue. So with everyone wanting it to continue, much of it likely would continue, with some arrangements improvised for setting the terms, which need not be difficult as long as everyone wants this trading to continue. They'll decide those terms somehow, and it might be close to "free trade," or at least easy terms to enable the business to keep happening. Since no one has any incentive to put an end to this trade, why should it end?

This doesn't mean the EU would "have free trade with Britain." It wouldn't mean any "free trade agreement" between the EU and Britain. Britain can trade with certain EU nations without meaning there's an official agreement with the EU allowing it, or even a "free trade deal" between Britain and those EU nations. Rather, some adjustments would take place to allow the trading to continue. Something more formal might emerge later, but the trade taking place now is so critical that it makes no sense for all of it to suddenly be terminated, resulting in billions of dollars of economic losses to so many.

What would be the point of having all that trade suddenly suppressed? The EU and Britain could avoid this dilemma by settling on a new trade deal, but if they don't, why shouldn't some or most of that trade continue anyway? What is the rationale to saying it has to stop, when all they have to do is just continue on with the business they're doing now? What makes all that trading stop, when everyone wants it to continue?

. . . if Britain want to negotiate it's own trade deals with third parties, then it would potentially become a passthrough state for imports from those third parties.

"third parties" meaning non-EU nations? You mean imports from outside Europe would then pass into EU member states via Britain?

Let's assume there'd be some of that. There's already much trading which isn't supposed to happen, under the rules of any trading bloc or agreement.

Trade is already made very complicated by the numerous obstacles, allowing products from country A but not country B, or requiring 33% domestic content -- or 41% or 53½%, etc., and other goofy rules from the bone-headed protectionists which make it difficult to determine what is allowed and what is not, and yet a process develops to allow the products through, with difficulty in some cases. This goofiness of the protectionist requirements does not mean the trade is all ended.

Maybe a procedure emerges for weeding out the "passthrough" imports, and maybe some of them slip through -- there are imperfections at customs trying to enforce this or that ban on something that threatens the jobs of this or that industry. The whole thing is so depraved and wasteful and destructive for consumers -- and yet there's no reason to say that all the trading has to stop because the rules cause a mess and are not uniformly enforced, and some jobs are threatened here and there because of a loophole, like "passthrough" imports. Maybe procedures are followed which would mostly prevent them.

That certain products from Britain to an EU country would continue to be shipped does not mean that this EU member would be opening its market to everything from Britain. Rather, the imports received would be limited to only the particular ones being traded now and which are desired to be continued, by both countries.

That there would be some complications from the resumed trade does not mean that all the trading now has to be stopped, because of Brexit. Whether it's "passthrough" imports or other details to be straightened out, which might be numerous, it does not follow that the billions of Euros/pounds in business has to suddenly stop. The rules are never perfectly followed or enforced, in anything to do with crossing borders. Minor nuisance issues like "passthrough" imports can be taken care of, or maybe never ideally fixed, but it's not important enough to annihilate all the current trading which millions depend on.

Such issues will cause some disruption, or adjustment in the current activity, but to say this has to put an end to all trade between Britain and those nations doesn't make sense. Why does all this trade have to suddenly come to a screeching halt? Who is going to step in and suppress this trading? Who is going to sink the ships going to Britain? How is the EU Navy going to impose its Continental Blockade of Britain? Why would it try?

Some of that trade would continue, because all the parties want it to continue and would do what's necessary to keep that business going. It makes no sense for them to say "Britain's no longer in the EU, so therefore we can't allow any imports from Britain like before." Why do they have to say that? If they want those imports, nothing stops them from accepting them and deciding on the terms.

Brexit would cause some disruption in the trading, but not put an end to all trading between Britain and EU nations, including Britain-to-EU exports. There's no reason why all that trading has to stop just because of Brexit. Why does it have to stop? If everyone wants it to continue, what forces it to stop? That there are new difficulties, new obstacles, would cause a decrease in the trading, but not a complete ending of it.

You can't be inside a tariff union without also having unified tariffs (and trade deals) with outsiders.

Britain currently does have the same tariffs (and trade deals) with the outsiders. After Brexit some of that could continue, so the terms with the outsiders would remain the same. If there's NO BREXIT DEAL, that includes no change in the terms with the outsiders. So the DEFAULT action for Britain would be to leave the current terms/tariffs in place.

Changes would eventually come, but the immediate steps would be to leave the current terms in place until some new trade deal is finally agreed to. So at first there'd be no problem with "unified tariffs (and trade deals) with outsiders."

Norway is an example of a non-EU state that has free trade with EU at the expense of not being able to have its own trade deals. But the UK doesn't want to be Norway.

Its new arrangement might become similar to Norway. Britain would make whatever adjustments are necessary in order to allow the current trading to continue.

The bottom line is simple: There is currently much trade going on between Britain and EU nations, and it makes no sense to say that all this trade has to suddenly be stopped after Brexit. What is the point of stopping something beneficial to everyone and harmful to no one? Who is going to say "OK, stop it! This all has to end, even though everyone wants it to continue. Stop it or I'll shoot!"

How does that make sense? How can anyone arbitrarily step in and put a stop to something which is benefiting millions of buyers and sellers and consumers, when it would be very simple to let it continue as it is going now? What is the critical need to put a stop to all this trading? How is the world going to end if the trading continues? Who will be harmed if it continues?

Obviously the only harm comes if the trading is stopped, not if it just continues as it's going now.

No one is answering why it has to stop, or who is going to stop it.

 

[bilby]

Is the President of the European Council going to wave his magic wand and turn all those ships into pumpkins?




That's not what would happen. What would happen is that the current trade going on would just continue, i.e., some of it, so that there would still be trading between Britain and some EU members (maybe not all). This might be "free trade" or at least with low tariffs, maybe just continuing the present levels, with individual EU states. It would not be "free trade" between the EU and Britain.

There's no way to predict how "free" the trade would be, or the tariff levels, but there's no reason all this trade has to stop. Both Britain and those EU states want to continue that trade, which is mutually beneficial and profitable to the companies, who want it to continue. So with everyone wanting it to continue, much of it likely would continue, with some arrangements improvised for setting the terms, which need not be difficult as long as everyone wants this trading to continue. They'll decide those terms somehow, and it might be close to "free trade," or at least easy terms to enable the business to keep happening. Since no one has any incentive to put an end to this trade, why should it end?

This doesn't mean the EU would "have free trade with Britain." It wouldn't mean any "free trade agreement" between the EU and Britain. Britain can trade with certain EU nations without meaning there's an official agreement with the EU allowing it, or even a "free trade deal" between Britain and those EU nations. Rather, some adjustments would take place to allow the trading to continue. Something more formal might emerge later, but the trade taking place now is so critical that it makes no sense for all of it to suddenly be terminated, resulting in billions of dollars of economic losses to so many.

What would be the point of having all that trade suddenly suppressed? The EU and Britain could avoid this dilemma by settling on a new trade deal, but if they don't, why shouldn't some or most of that trade continue anyway? What is the rationale to saying it has to stop, when all they have to do is just continue on with the business they're doing now? What makes all that trading stop, when everyone wants it to continue?




"third parties" meaning non-EU nations? You mean imports from outside Europe would then pass into EU member states via Britain?

Let's assume there'd be some of that. There's already much trading which isn't supposed to happen, under the rules of any trading bloc or agreement.

Trade is already made very complicated by the numerous obstacles, allowing products from country A but not country B, or requiring 33% domestic content -- or 41% or 53½%, etc., and other goofy rules from the bone-headed protectionists which make it difficult to determine what is allowed and what is not, and yet a process develops to allow the products through, with difficulty in some cases. This goofiness of the protectionist requirements does not mean the trade is all ended.

Maybe a procedure emerges for weeding out the "passthrough" imports, and maybe some of them slip through -- there are imperfections at customs trying to enforce this or that ban on something that threatens the jobs of this or that industry. The whole thing is so depraved and wasteful and destructive for consumers -- and yet there's no reason to say that all the trading has to stop because the rules cause a mess and are not uniformly enforced, and some jobs are threatened here and there because of a loophole, like "passthrough" imports. Maybe procedures are followed which would mostly prevent them.

That certain products from Britain to an EU country would continue to be shipped does not mean that this EU member would be opening its market to everything from Britain. Rather, the imports received would be limited to only the particular ones being traded now and which are desired to be continued, by both countries.

That there would be some complications from the resumed trade does not mean that all the trading now has to be stopped, because of Brexit. Whether it's "passthrough" imports or other details to be straightened out, which might be numerous, it does not follow that the billions of Euros/pounds in business has to suddenly stop. The rules are never perfectly followed or enforced, in anything to do with crossing borders. Minor nuisance issues like "passthrough" imports can be taken care of, or maybe never ideally fixed, but it's not important enough to annihilate all the current trading which millions depend on.

Such issues will cause some disruption, or adjustment in the current activity, but to say this has to put an end to all trade between Britain and those nations doesn't make sense. Why does all this trade have to suddenly come to a screeching halt? Who is going to step in and suppress this trading? Who is going to sink the ships going to Britain? How is the EU Navy going to impose its Continental Blockade of Britain? Why would it try?

Some of that trade would continue, because all the parties want it to continue and would do what's necessary to keep that business going. It makes no sense for them to say "Britain's no longer in the EU, so therefore we can't allow any imports from Britain like before." Why do they have to say that? If they want those imports, nothing stops them from accepting them and deciding on the terms.

Brexit would cause some disruption in the trading, but not put an end to all trading between Britain and EU nations, including Britain-to-EU exports. There's no reason why all that trading has to stop just because of Brexit. Why does it have to stop? If everyone wants it to continue, what forces it to stop? That there are new difficulties, new obstacles, would cause a decrease in the trading, but not a complete ending of it.

You can't be inside a tariff union without also having unified tariffs (and trade deals) with outsiders.

Britain currently does have the same tariffs (and trade deals) with the outsiders. After Brexit some of that could continue, so the terms with the outsiders would remain the same. If there's NO BREXIT DEAL, that includes no change in the terms with the outsiders. So the DEFAULT action for Britain would be to leave the current terms/tariffs in place.

Changes would eventually come, but the immediate steps would be to leave the current terms in place until some new trade deal is finally agreed to. So at first there'd be no problem with "unified tariffs (and trade deals) with outsiders."

Norway is an example of a non-EU state that has free trade with EU at the expense of not being able to have its own trade deals. But the UK doesn't want to be Norway.

Its new arrangement might become similar to Norway. Britain would make whatever adjustments are necessary in order to allow the current trading to continue.

The bottom line is simple: There is currently much trade going on between Britain and EU nations, and it makes no sense to say that all this trade has to suddenly be stopped after Brexit. What is the point of stopping something beneficial to everyone and harmful to no one? Who is going to say "OK, stop it! This all has to end, even though everyone wants it to continue. Stop it or I'll shoot!"

How does that make sense? How can anyone arbitrarily step in and put a stop to something which is benefiting millions of buyers and sellers and consumers, when it would be very simple to let it continue as it is going now? What is the critical need to put a stop to all this trading? How is the world going to end if the trading continues? Who will be harmed if it continues?

Obviously the only harm comes if the trading is stopped, not if it just continues as it's going now.

No one is answering why it has to stop, or who is going to stop it.

It has to stop because it's in contravention of EU laws designed to protect EU consumers and businesses from fraud, health issues, safety breaches, and a large number of other hazards.

Who is going to stop it is the customs officials of the EU.

You really cannot just ignore the complex (but genuine) reality in favour of your simple (but foolish) dreams. It just doesn't work that way. That's not how any of this works.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

I remember pre-EU days. We do not want to go back to that mess. Extremely complicated to run a company. Since the Brits are used to EU we'll have riots when it dawns on people how complicated and bad it was. It's not just the tariffs, but having to keep track of everything, and pay for an extremely expensive bureaucracy, and every package being late.

 

[funinspace]

You really cannot just ignore the complex (but genuine) reality in favour of your simple (but foolish) dreams.

Yeah, he can. If nothing else Lumpy has stamina. He has even done this for literally years on 1 thread...

It just doesn't work that way. That's not how any of this works.

Good luck getting the message thru...

 

[Keith&Co.]

The bottom line is simple: There is currently much trade going on between Britain and EU nations, and it makes no sense to say that all this trade has to suddenly be stopped after Brexit. What is the point of stopping something beneficial to everyone and harmful to no one? Who is going to say "OK, stop it! This all has to end, even though everyone wants it to continue. Stop it or I'll shoot!"

Hey, how many soy beans did the US sell China last year...?

 

[bilby]

The whole issue with the border is based on the concept of trust. In the European Union, member states share laws, courts and enforcement procedures. They know that the rules on the slaughter of cattle, the electronic components of cars or the chemical compounds in children’s toys are all the same. They can take someone to court if something goes wrong, even if they’re in another country, because they have the same institutions. This creates trust. And that’s why goods cross over national borders freely, with no checks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-collective-madness-behind-britains-latest-brexit-plan/2019/01/31/48d4d67e-2578-11e9-81fd-b7b05d5bed90_story.html

After Brexit, The EU will be legally unable to trust the UK. No goods, no people, and no services will be allowed to cross the border from the UK to the EU without the exporter first demonstrating that they meet the EU standards - that they are safe, have the appropriate visa, and comply with EU law.

This is currently true of all entries to the EU from non-EU territories. A US farmer wanting to sell his beef to an EU supermarket must provide certificates from organisations approved by the EU (eg the USDA). No such organisations still exist in the UK (because they haven't been needed for over four decades). They take time to establish and be approved by the EU. And until they are, the approval processes fall back to the very complicated and detailed requirements that were established by the WTO. Goods must be inspected and tested at the border. People will require visas and stamps in their passports before they are allowed to cross. Service providers will need to employ expensive lawyers to certify the lawfulness of their activities.

This is not speculation. It's the requirement of EU law, and it will be enforced by EU officials, because that's their job - and if they don't do it diligently and thoroughly, it will be their arses on the line if someone imports bad food, or if UK citizens take jobs to which they are no longer entitled, or if a foreign service provider leaks sensitive information about EU citizens.