Maybe NO-BREXIT-DEAL is the best outcome.

[Lumpenproletariat]

99% of the current trade and process could continue after Brexit.

The disruption in trade will be more than only 1%, because of normal chaos and mistakes. But most of the current trade can continue, unless there is unnecessary infliction of punishment onto Britain, out of spite, rather than necessary changes caused by Brexit.

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.

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

There's no need for any of these rules to change after Brexit.

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.

The simple answer to this is that all the above can essentially continue anyway, after Brexit. There's no reason why it all has to be changed and the current procedures ended.

The qualifier though is that there are some EU rules, probably not in the above categories, that Britain would modify, because of objections to them. Those could be dealt with individually, one by one. There is nothing about the EU rules making it necessary that member nations have to be absolutely bound by all of them without any exceptions. It's good to allow some opting out of rules, because sometimes the rules are unrealistic and inflict harm if they are universally enforced. Allowing some diversion from the rules, according to individual discretion, puts pressure on the EU to reconsider its rules, and possibly make corrections in them. This already happens anyway, in various ways. So at most Brexit only means some additional departure from particular rules.

So if Britain rejects a certain rule, there are ways to address this, to make some modifications, without meaning that the whole system of rules and checking procedures is abandoned, because 99% of it would still be followed by Britain.

After Brexit, The EU will be legally unable to trust the UK.

It will be able to trust the UK just as it does now. The UK will still subject itself to the overall system of rules, while indicating one or two points of difference from the previous procedures. Those individual points can be dealt with one by one, because there would be so few of them. There is always a mixture of trust and mistrust, and compliance and noncompliance, or circumvention, of rules, even among official members. There is no universal absolute trust of anything or anyone, because there is always some deviation from the rules. But the same level of trust will still exist after Brexit.

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.

They will still be able to do this as they do now. If the EU arbitrarily rules that this cannot be done any longer, that is the EU's arbitrary decision, which is not necessary. Brexit does not mean that Britain no longer agrees to the same standards as before, to the same checking and safety requirements. If there is a particular departure from any current standard or rule, that will be officially declared and dealt with individually. But there is probably no significant change in anything about crossing the borders which is required by Brexit.

If Britain intends to change anything about what crosses the border, it has to declare this and make whatever changes are necessary in order to be able to carry on the same traffic as before, or it might have to discontinue that particular traffic. But unless you indicate which particular traffic would change, we can assume that there is no essential change in the traffic across the borders.

Just because there is a particular change here or there, in some rule which Brexit would change, does not mean that now all traffic across borders has to be disrupted and Britain can no longer be trusted. On the contrary, there is already trust before Brexit and the possibility of the trust being violated, and Britain's new relation as a nonmember does not make it any less trustworthy than it was before.

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).

There is no reason why the current procedure, before Brexit, could not be continued. Brexit does not require that those procedures and certifications be ended. If EU ends those procedures, this is an arbitrary action by it. If there are costs involved, those could be paid the same as they are now, before Brexit. And even if there are some new costs, these need not be significant.

If Britain wants to change something in the procedures, it would have to address that individually. But no one is indicating any change Britain wants to make in the certifying of beef products.

Brexit does not mean that Britain is no longer trustworthy about products it would want to ship to an EU nation. If it acts in compliance, intending to follow the same procedures as before, there is nothing about Brexit which disallows the same compliance as before or makes Britain more risky to do business with. Mere membership in EU does not make a member more trustworthy than if it were not a member, as long as it still goes through the same procedures as members.

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.

There's no need to establish anything new. However, if the EU unnecessarily bans British products, then Britain would take the time to establish the new procedures. After Brexit there will be some disruption in the trade, and delay in adjusting to the new system. Preparations are already being made for that eventuality.

That changes happen and adjustments are necessary does not mean that all trade has to be stopped. Some of it will be interrupted until the needed changes are made. But most of it need not go through any interruption. If there are widespread interruptions, these are imposed arbitrarily, unnecessarily, because Brexit does not contain anything requiring widespread ending of the current trade and the procedures. Rather, the same trade can be carried on as before. Possibly some of this would violate certain EU rules which were unnecessary and could be circumvented in order to continue the trade without any risk to anyone.

It's not true that Europeans are unable distinguish between what is necessary and what is unnecessary. There are many rules and procedures which are arbitrary and can be circumvented in order to accomplish what is needed. We are generally not so stupid as to be unable to make the distinctions and act according to the need, and make exceptions to rules when they serve no purpose or when they don't apply in a certain case. Such circumvention develops over time, and will after Brexit, according to expediency. Doing what is expedient often takes priority over following rules in those cases where the rules don't apply in practice as they were originally intended.

Goods must be inspected and tested at the border.

Nothing about Brexit would change the need for inspections or testing, which can continue the same as before Brexit, with no new inspections or testing than before. Even if there are some changes in the procedures, nothing prevents the changes from taking place, because there is no major change in the rules or the need served by inspections and testing. The basic need does not change, and so the same essential system as before would still apply, even if some elements in it are changed.

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.

You're exaggerating. Preparations are already taking place to deal with the minor changes that will be needed. Some changes cause disruption. That doesn't mean we can't ever make changes. The greedy capitalist pigs will do what they have to in order to adjust to the new system.

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 . . .

That's already the case now, before Brexit. Nothing of that nature changes as a result of Brexit.

. . . 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.

All those dangers and risks exist anyway, at present. And there's no reason for the employment rules to be any different after Brexit. Brexit does not contain a requirement banning foreigners from working in Britain, and there's no reason for Brits to be banned from employment in an EU country.

Some of the disruptions after Brexit will be unnecessary, as some EU technical and legalistic obstacles may happen. These will be the fault of those EU rules being inappropriately applied and not caused by Brexit. There is nothing caused by Brexit which will cause major disruptions of the traffic now happening.

You may be right that the EU will want to punish Britain and try to find technicalities to ensnare someone who otherwise would be allowed to pass, regardless of the technical rules. It's true that out of spite there might be unnecessary targeting of Brits for some kind of harassment. In the U.S., e.g., a company might be targeted by INS agents for harassment, who conduct a raid, not to enforce the rules, but as publicity, or to punish that company for a political purpose. You are right that the enforcers do sometimes abuse their power. That's not Brexit's fault.

 

[laughing dog]

The disruption in trade will be more than only 1%, because of normal chaos and mistakes. But most of the current trade can continue....

You are correct. There is no necessary natural reaction that will force trade to be disrupted. Just like there is no necessary natural law for your persistent obtuseness and willful ignorance. But observation and history show that just like your responses will continue to conflate wishful-thinking delusional word salads, a no deal Brexit will mean that Britain will face significant trade barriers with the EU.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Brexit is a chance for the UK to do the world a favor -- UNILATERAL FREE TRADE.

As of 3/6 Brexit is still scheduled for 3/29, with no deal yet, or postponement.

If it happens, there is a possibility of unilateral free trade as a result. For 80% - 90% of products, according to the following.

(Note farther down the subheading 'Unilateral liberalisation')

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47463893

UK may slash trade tariffs under a no-deal Brexit

6 March 2019

The UK government may cut trade tariffs on between 80% and 90% of goods in the event of a no-deal Brexit, reports say.

Some tariffs would be scrapped completely, including those on car parts, and some agricultural produce.

However, 10-20% of key products would continue to be protected by the current level of tariffs, including some textiles, cars, beef, lamb and dairy.

This is the only bad news, having to protect specially-selected crybabies who have more power than the other crybabies and so get preference, not because of any economic need, but only because of sheer power and the bone-headed protectionist Crybaby Economics, like that preached by Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

The government said it would make an announcement once a decision had been finalised.

Tariffs are taxes on imports which protect UK companies from overseas competition.

• UK to keep trade penalties post-Brexit

• UK farmers promised 'no deal' tariff protection

Many supporters of Brexit argue that tariffs on food and other items should be scrapped in order to lower prices for consumers.

But farmers fear that cheap imports and lower standards would destroy many parts of British agriculture.

Only the uncompetitive parts. And the same standards could be maintained. Nothing about Brexit prevents the government from continuing the same standards as those currently.

Similar concerns have been expressed in other sectors of the economy, and many business leaders fear the government could be tempted to cut tariffs at their expense.

The plans for widespread cuts in tariffs were first reported by Sky News.

Business Secretary Greg Clark told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that new tariff schedules would be published only after next week's Commons vote on Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal if it became clear the UK would be leaving the EU without a deal.

The changes would have "big implications" for some sectors, he said.

"We have been consulting with different industry sectors on this. It has big implications for different sectors. Ceramics is an industry that I know very well. It has been subject to very unfair competition, to dumping of very cheap ceramic exports from the Far East, from China."

"dumping" = competition = good for consumers, higher standard of living

It's more and more obvious that it's mainly the uncompetitive crybabies/parasites who are most alarmed by Brexit, because they see more competition coming, so they'll have to get off their ass and compete, rather than continuing to benefit from special privilege at everyone else's expense.

The Department for International Trade said that no final decision had been taken on tariffs, but there had been discussion across government about the right level in the even of a no-deal.

"If we leave the European Union without an agreement, our tariffs will need to strike a balance between protecting consumers and businesses from possible price rises and avoiding the exposure of sensitive industries to competition."

What industry is NOT "sensitive"? Obviously every crybaby producer out there believes their industry is the most "sensitive" and needing special protection. What's going to make these crybabies finally grow up? Maybe Brexit is just what is needed.

'Unilateral liberalisation'

Appearing before the International Trade Select Committee Liam Fox declined to comment on the reports. He said: "The government will set out what it believes to be the correct tariffs if indeed we get to a no-deal scenario."

"what it believes to be the correct tariffs" -- sure, everyone has their own subjective arbitrary instinct on which companies/industries need to be protected. It depends on which demagogue is in power, or which crybaby has paid the highest bribes to the decision-makers. Also sentiment plays a role, romantic visions of certain factory workers, or certain farmers, etc., who are worshiped as sacred objects, for nostalgia and sentimentality feelings. E.g., the dairy farmers, because of our emotional attachment to the mooing of the cows, etc. No one has ever given any logical argument why any particular kind of production is more important than all the others and needing special protection which all the others must pay for.

The international trade secretary also said there were a "number of ways" to reduce the impact of low tariffs on industries such as farming and manufacturing which may benefit from their protection. He did not lay out a specific plan.

Last month, Environment Secretary Michael Gove promised farmers that the government would apply tariffs to food imports in the event of a no-deal Brexit, to provide "specific and robust protections" for farmers.

"robust"? And what about the "robust" higher prices consumers have to pay to provide this "robust" protection to the crybaby farmers?

There's obviously some crybaby-pandering here, with this kind of language. When will the decision-makers finally tell these crybabies to stop their whining and learn how to compete? No, just more pandering:

"Your concerns have absolutely been heard," Mr Gove told a conference of the National Farmers' Union (NFU). "It will not be the case that we will have zero-rate tariffs on food products.

"There will be protections for sensitive sections of agriculture and food production."

Who decides which section is "sensitive" and which is not?

These promises to crybabies might not be fulfilled.

Note that the more these efforts are made to provide "protection" to the crybabies, the more complicated the process becomes and the more damage will be done to the economy by this Brexit event. The coming disruption of the economy, from Brexit, is due mainly to the uncertainty of what the new tariffs/barriers are to be, which is totally subjective and based solely on special-interest power-politics only. So all the decisions will be arbitrary. The rational course would be to dump ALL the tariffs completely, on everything, or apply a uniform across-the-board near-zero tariff on all, without distinction.

Why should ANY production be specially selected for protection as distinct from others?

Analysis: By Dharshini David, economics correspondent

Tariffs perform two functions: to protect businesses from competition from abroad - and to raise money for governments.

However, these charges also spell higher prices for consumers.

By cutting tariffs on the majority of imports, the government would be giving consumers a helping hand.

While areas such as farming would benefit from the protection of tariffs, dropping them elsewhere would leave other UK businesses disadvantaged relative to their European competitors.

But it would leave all consumers, i.e., the whole nation, advantaged. So who's more important -- the whole nation, or a few special-interest producers?

That may weigh on politicians' minds, as the Prime Minister tries to rustle up last minute support for her deal.

In global terms, cutting the majority of tariffs would be a hugely bold move: it would send out the message that the UK is freeing up trade and is open for business.

In view of the above, how can anyone say unilateral free trade is not a real possibility here? 100% unilateral free trade would be the least arbitrary, because there would be no decisions on which special interests to favor, in discrimination against all the others. It would put an end to all the squabbling about who to protect, which is subjective, and leave the whole economy open to all players to compete, so the rewards/penalties will be based on merit only, not on power politics and special favor to select crybabies.

More importantly, how can anyone deny that such an event would be a benefit to the UK, and to the world? Showing finally that free trade is possible without "trade deals" and can be done by a single nation on its own.

What could go wrong, if the UK does eliminate most of the tariffs/barriers? Even ALL of them?

Of, if it still needs some revenue, why not a single uniform low tariff on everything across-the-board? for every product category, for every industry, for every country, for every company, without any distinction?

(Instead of taxing a percent of the value, why not $100 per ton (or $1000 per ton (or $50 per ton)), to make it simple and with nothing to squabble over.)

Even if that's unlikely, you have to admit that this would be best -- greatest good for the greatest number -- and that the only reason it's unlikely is the opposition from the uncompetitive crybabies, labor unions, special interests, etc., who care only about promoting their benefit at the expense of the whole nation (all the consumers).