More post brexit referendum good news!!!!

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:11 am

and let's not forget that everyone has their own personal agenda. doesn't necessarily mean they want what's best for the UK. any business owner who trades mainly with europe would probably have voted to remain; only natural.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:12 am

Economic guys seem quite convinced

Duncan Wheldon

"Which is the smart thing to do politically.
“Sure, we are leaving the customs union & single market - look a proper Brexit!”
*Whispers* “But yeah, to keep the Irish border flowing we may not actually change very much”."

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:19 am

Some good comments from Kate Andrews, Institute of Economic Affairs on QT last night.

Thought she was pretty weak to be honest, certainly I wouldn't want an expert in her field saying that economists can't predict accurately in advance. I get that they can be wrong, but how else does anyone plan if you can't do that?

Bernard Jenkins was appalling if you knew anything about the EU, but probably sounded great if you didn't

Richard Bacon is excellent, and was very good again. Its a pretty sad state of affairs that as always, its the non-poltiicans who tend to come out best on QT, which as politicians are supposed to be good at that kind of thing is a bit depressing.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:25 am

In the grand scheme of things I predict that not much will really change. "Remoaners" will get a sense of victory with the compromises that will be negotiated on their behalf; "Bwexiters" will get a sense of victory because they have won the referendum and the UK will "leave" the EU; the EU will be happy because the UK wont be a part of the USoE (but really we will be but lets not actively shout it from the rooftops); and in 20 years time if anyone could be bothered to check what the differences are there will be very few that will have made a difference to the electorate.

I really just wish that there wasn't so much animosity from everyone on this thread - we all used to get along so nicely

For those who like to think that democracy is fair and equal read the following article and remember that this man has an equal vote too

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bi ... m-42271150" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:28 am

Some good comments from Kate Andrews, Institute of Economic Affairs on QT last night.

I thought she was excellent, particularly in pointing out the political point scoring especially when Owen Smith began point scoring on his next response. Also had plenty of audience applause which would tend to back up her sensible points. She struggled with the Trump Jerusalem question but overall I thought she came across very well.

Richard Bacon pushed for a moderate remainer facade which promptly slipped as soon as Bernard Jenkins spoke and Owen Smith was made to look ridiculous when he offered a figure of 15-20% export fees which was immediately shown to be 9.8%. His comment on Jenkins' castle showed exactly the class of politician he was.

Bernard Jenkins seemed weak on the whole and dithered over many points and Liz Saville-Roberts told us about Wales.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:32 am

And 9.8% is good because?

Its still more than the zero we have now, and I think the 15-20% tariff is actually a conservative figure when ALL possible tariffs (for all possible items) are taken into account.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:43 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Thought she was pretty weak to be honest, certainly I wouldn't want an expert in her field saying that economists can't predict accurately in advance. I get that they can be wrong, but how else does anyone plan if you can't do that?

Bernard Jenkins was appalling if you knew anything about the EU, but probably sounded great if you didn't

Richard Bacon is excellent, and was very good again. Its a pretty sad state of affairs that as always, its the non-poltiicans who tend to come out best on QT, which as politicians are supposed to be good at that kind of thing is a bit depressing.

"Bernard Jenkins was appalling if you knew anything about the EU, but probably sounded great if you didn't"

Because, of course, you know everything about the EU don't you!? You believe it's democratic! Stop the usual self-aggrandizing!

As for the metropolitan bubble dweller Bacon. He's so happy with a UK, while being a member of the EU, as it currently is. He lives in the USA!!! What a hypocritical, pontificating, Remoaner!

As for Owen Smith, who's constituents voted for brexit. He's only famous for coming 2nd to Jeremy Combyn!

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:47 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:And 9.8% is good because?

Its still more than the zero we have now, and I think the 15-20% tariff is actually a conservative figure when ALL possible tariffs (for all possible items) are taken into account.

9.8% is good because it's less than the 15-20% which Owen Smith was lying/point scoring with.

As was also pointed out, with the incoming taxes on automobiles, should that 9.8% apply, we would be able to use these funds to offset the tariff. I know this doesn't sit well with you're 'were all doomed because of Brexit' rhetoric, mind.

(awaits but the Tories response)

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:57 am

A day off today so watching last night’s This Week.

I feel like I have been psychologically cleansed listening to the calming words of Andrew Neil.

He asked Tim Shipman whether the media (and by extension, the public) gets too overwrought about things that end up getting quietly settled. Absolutely right. Also said the government has turned out to be “weak and stable”. Right again.

Neil’s intro speech then talked about the folly about snobby metropolitan MPs disrespecting the DUP by trying to bounce them into a bad deal for them. As he rightly says, their leader saw her father gunned down by the IRA, and her school bus was blown up - while she was on it. They have many aspects to them I disagree with - but a lack of steel isn’t one of them.

Anyway, thanks to the DUP - the odds of a free trade deal that still allow us to set our own tariffs and negotiate elsewhere has just gone up massively. That’s the prize. If we can get that, I don’t see why all sides shouldn’t be delighted.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:12 am

You wouldn't be a Brexiteer if you couldn't fixate on the car imports Darth. Its the default position!

Not disagreeing with you Crosspool, but I've never ever seen the "free trade deal that still allows us to set our own tariffs" in a sentence before.

I assume you mean that it won't be a free trade deal, but one in which either side is free to set its own tariffs to protect its own industries?

Or am I reading it wrong?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:14 am

You lot need to be checking twitter as this deal gets picked through.

There is quite a lot that doesn't make a lot of sense, and a few of the commentators are making interesting comments, mainly along the lines of "How did they manage to get Gove and Johnson to sign up for this?"

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:19 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:You lot need to be checking twitter as this deal gets picked through.

There is quite a lot that doesn't make a lot of sense, and a few of the commentators are making interesting comments, mainly along the lines of "How did they manage to get Gove and Johnson to sign up for this?"

Probably because the remain media has been mis-representing them as "brextremists" similar to what you do with leavers on here.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:20 am

This is potentially gold

https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/statu ... 5550495744" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:24 am

Brexit bill to be between 35bn and 39bn.

https://twitter.com/marioledwith/status ... 7595113473" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:27 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:This is potentially gold

https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/statu ... 5550495744" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Taking back control.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:31 am

I'm a bit late to this thread, but It would appear to me that as it unfolds and trade talks get underway it will not be what the majority of "leavers" voted for.
It has to be remembered that the divorce bill is just that, (Hammond as admitted this), and now the more difficult business of agreeing how much we should pay for access to free trade gets under way, and whether we would have to agree to free movement like Switzerland and Norway in order to achieve it. So still lots of work to do, but for the moment it should be sufficient to satisfy both remainers and leavers.
However, we've only really got over the first hurdle and we appear to have given way on most of the points that we were told we wouldn't.
No hard border for Ireland is of course great news, but that had to happen anyway, and does this not now all but rule out a no deal, since how can we revert to WTO rules without a border?

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:33 am

claretandy wrote:Brexit bill to be between 35bn and 39bn.

https://twitter.com/marioledwith/status ... 7595113473" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So is that good or bad news?
It's a lot more than the likes of Johnson were suggesting, indeed a substantial minority of politicians have been saying we owe nothing. This is just the exit fee, it's not the total cost.

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:33 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:You wouldn't be a Brexiteer if you couldn't fixate on the car imports Darth. Its the default position!

I was fixated on the lies Owen Smith was peddling tbh. Ironically it was him (a remainer) who chose the local Ford engine plant to Swansea as the subject of his attempted point scoring.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:35 am

Right ho

The point he made (badly) is that its currently tariff free, and it won't be if we have WTO rules.

it wouldn't be a Brexit discussion if people didn't ignore the real issue though would it?

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:38 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Right ho

The point he made (badly) is that its currently tariff free, and it won't be if we have WTO rules.

it wouldn't be a Brexit discussion if people didn't ignore the real issue though would it?

Indeed the lie, painted as a point made badly, is nicely ignored. It wouldn't be a Brexit conversation if there weren't lies used to score points.

When does the punishment budget kick in btw? Is it when the £350 million starts to be paid into the NHS?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:42 am

Right ho

Does the Ford plant in Swansea pay tariffs now? No

Will it under WTO rules? Yes

You are in Ringo territory here Darth, with the greatest respect. Smith made a daft mistake when he didn't have to, but that doesn't change the point he was making.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:48 am

nil_desperandum wrote:So is that good or bad news?
It's a lot more than the likes of Johnson were suggesting, indeed a substantial minority of politicians have been saying we owe nothing. This is just the exit fee, it's not the total cost.

Its a lot less than the 100bn Boris told them to go whistle for. And as the agreement points out, will only be paid once everything is agreed, Hammond was wrong, and was slapped down for being wrong.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:50 am

One thing that this does do btw is probably knock the prospects of a labour govt under Corbyn into touch.

There is enough here (especially when you get in to it) to please remainers and give the Conservatives a chance of regaining votes they lost in that part of the electorate.

And the Brexiteers have nowhere else to go.

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:50 am

Was that the point that other panel members made, that under WTO rules we would recoup a surplus due to the import tariff's on EU vehicles, which would be used to offset the tariff on our own exports?

Just checking which points you're selectively using here.

Right ho?

The fact that I was only talking about last night's question time panelists performance in this discussion seems to have also escaped you, whilst trying to keep telling us that we're all fukced thanks to Brexit.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:50 am

claretandy wrote:Its a lot less than the 100bn Boris told them to go whistle for. And as the agreement points out, will only be paid once everything is agreed, Hammond was wrong, and was slapped down for being wrong.

So that's ok then. You're happy with it. Fair enough.
Let's see what the next phase of negotiations costs us before we agree. Ok?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:53 am

Nope, I'm telling you that the point he made was wrong in the amount, but correct in the actual intent.

You seem to ignore that, and have turned into Bernard Jenkins. Thats not a good look.

If you'd read the thread, or any of my posts, we are only ****** if we have no deal. I don't think I could have been any clearer. But clearly I could have been.

No deal ***** us.

This doesn't, and isn't what the Brexiteers wanted. I'm over the ******* moon with it to be honest.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:54 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:One thing that this does do btw is probably knock the prospects of a labour govt under Corbyn into touch.

There is enough here (especially when you get in to it) to please remainers and give the Conservatives a chance of regaining votes they lost in that part of the electorate.

I was thinking the same. However, it could all change if the right-wing start creating problems as trade discussions progress and they find that - as it appears today - nothing much will change.

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:00 am

I picked up on the lie, then the explanation that was given. Smith's point was made, shown to be inaccurate but countered nevertheless. The short applause from the public suggested this was understood.

Back to the initial point Kate Andrews also pointed out that all parties should stop the point scoring and help, a point she had to repeat when Smith threw in his spurious figure.

You seem to be intent on ignoring anything positive which can be gained from Brexit, in favour of a tantrum on why the UK is goosed. Certainly not a good look.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:03 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Right ho

Does the Ford plant in Swansea pay tariffs now? No

Will it under WTO rules? Yes

You are in Ringo territory here Darth, with the greatest respect. Smith made a daft mistake when he didn't have to, but that doesn't change the point he was making.

Hi Lancs, yes, the Ford engine plant in Bridgend, manufactures engines for Ford vehicles. I think all those vehicles are then assembled elsewhere in Europe - and then some of the finished products are sold in the UK. Would be interesting to know how tariffs are calculated. Does Ford pay EU tariffs when they transfer the engines to the final assembly plants in Europe - let's assume this is 9.8% (this appears to have been agreed last night on QT). What then happens to the finished vehicles that are then sold in the UK? Does these also have 9.8% tariff added to the completed assembly price, including the engine (+ import to EU 9.8% tariff), or is the "imported into EU tariff" deducted from the full value tariff - because the engines were made in Wales? I don't know. Does anyone have a "fact check" on this - something that will help us understand WTO rules.

Of course, a trade deal between UK and EU may result in modifying any WTO tariffs.

As a little historical background, Bridgend was also the manufacturing site of both Volvo and Jaguar Land Rover engines - from the time when Ford owned both these marks. As I understand it, both Volvo and JLR have now moved their engine manufacturing elsewhere - and Volvo is planning to be all hybrid (or all electric, I'm not sure).

If JLR was still manufacturing in Bridgend - and the same applies to their new engine plant in UK - aren't the largest volume and value of JLR vehicles exported to USA? If so, I assume that they are already dealing with WTO tariffs.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:08 am

Darthlaw wrote:I picked up on the lie, then the explanation that was given. Smith's point was made, shown to be inaccurate but countered nevertheless. The short applause from the public suggested this was understood.

Back to the initial point Kate Andrews also pointed out that all parties should stop the point scoring and help, a point she had to repeat when Smith threw in his spurious figure.

You seem to be intent on ignoring anything positive which can be gained from Brexit, in favour of a tantrum on why the UK is goosed. Certainly not a good look.

Hi Darthlaw, agree, Kate Andrews made good points about all the "political point scoring."

I also thought her comments on economic forecasting were very realistic.

And, as an American she seemed to know something about Trumps decision to relocate the USA embassy to Jerusalem that had not previously been reported in UK media - i.e both democrats and republicans had made this decision a long time ago (1975, I think she said), and all US president's since had been deferring implementation. She was, of course, quite clear that she thought Trump had made a poor decision.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:08 am

Ford haven't made any vehicles in the UK for at least a decade, I think it was 2006/7 when Transit production was switched from England to Turkey.

Land Rover still use some Ford engines in the Evoque and possibly some other models.

Ford UK make just components/engines now.

JLR export a lot, but they have plants in China and Brazil along with a new plant proposed for Eastern Europe, Slovakia I think it was.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:38 pm

I think we can all agree that the political point scoring is a waste of everyones time, but that isn't going to stop it.

Some more good news in the deal, especially regarding educational stuff, namely UK continuing to fund a lot of joint projects, including Horizon 2020.

Its actually a good deal for the sensible Brexiteers, as though its not a straight leave, it does make the prospects of not leaving at all a lot less likely (and the prospect of No deal)

I'm still laughing at the meltdown from Farage and Banks though. They must be seeing something that I'm not, because we are still leaving, but they are still mad as hell.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:49 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I'm still laughing at the meltdown from Farage and Banks though. They must be seeing something that I'm not, because we are still leaving, but they are still mad as hell.

There's a decent chance that we'll leave the EU in name only. Which is fine. It respects the referendum result by formally leaving the EU, but without causing utter turmoil in the process.

Once the vote to leave came in, the 'Norway' option was always going to be the most sensible thing to do, even if it does go against the wishes of hard Brexiters like Farage and Banks.

There's still a long way to go, and this is only really the beginning, but today I feel more hopeful for the future of the UK than I have done at any point in the last 18 months.

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:52 pm

I wonder if those that wanted a hard Brexit will get over the fact they appear to have lost? I’ll guess we’ll find out.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:08 pm

I logged on thinking that everyone would be happy (except those desperate for hard brexit)
But just found lots of this

: IMG_20170629_192025.jpg (194.98 KiB) Viewed 2035 times

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:11 pm

Eh?

All the remainers are happy as larry Damo.

Its effectively what I've been asking for with the transition deal, and as long as the right of the Tory party keeps quiet we could have a trade deal that minimises the damage.

I'm very cheerful this morning, and so should you be.

RocketLawnChair · Post by **RocketLawnChair** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:20 pm

If attitudes and moods can change in less than 10 hours Davis is probably right no real need for impact studies !! The Irish border was sorted quicker than it was debated on here.....

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:25 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:There's a decent chance that we'll leave the EU in name only.

It looks like that's the plan. Not too bad an outcome from the position we find ourselves in, really.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:29 pm

Damo wrote:I logged on thinking that everyone would be happy (except those desperate for hard brexit)
But just found lots of this
IMG_20170629_192025.jpg

Strange interpretation of the scenario and the recent tone of this thread Damo.
I think all the usual "remoaners" on this board, (and nationally), have expressed cautious optimism and relative contentment, whereas it's the hard brexiteers like Farage and Banks who are understandably expressing displeasure.
I'm rather busy today. Have we had the verdict from John Redwood, Peter Bone and Bill Cash yet?

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:30 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:One thing that this does do btw is probably knock the prospects of a labour govt under Corbyn into touch.

There is enough here (especially when you get in to it) to please remainers and give the Conservatives a chance of regaining votes they lost in that part of the electorate.

And the Brexiteers have nowhere else to go.

Will they not just go back to UKIP (both ardent brexiteers from Labour and the Tories), or do you think UKIP is completely dead and buried now? The odds of a 2018 election have receded this morning, certainly.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:31 pm

They have sent a telegram to No 10 I think.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:35 pm

Why would they?

They won one seat in an actual election I think.

Remember the debate on here about Burnley turning Conservative in the last election because of the anti-Brexit MP?

How did that work out?

Nope, they are stuck in the right of the Conservative Party. They can still screw this up mind, but only if people don't question them.

Since the referendum, Farage and Banks in particular have been completely destroyed to the extent Banks threatens journalists who ask him questions he doens't want to answer and Farage likes gobbing off on his radio show, which is entertaining but has zero impact on the British political scene.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:41 pm

As a "remoaner" I can't say I'd be too happy with a Norway style deal. We'd still have to abide by most of the rules but without an opportunity to influence them. Rather than some half-arsed neither in nor out deal I'd prefer us to split off properly or not do it at all.

I predicted from the start that this was probably what we'd end up with though, negligible benefits but the pretence that we'd done something.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:45 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:You wouldn't be a Brexiteer if you couldn't fixate on the car imports Darth. Its the default position!

Not disagreeing with you Crosspool, but I've never ever seen the "free trade deal that still allows us to set our own tariffs" in a sentence before.

I assume you mean that it won't be a free trade deal, but one in which either side is free to set its own tariffs to protect its own industries?

Or am I reading it wrong?

Sorry, reword - free trade deal with the EU that let’s us set our own tariffs outside the EU, like Norway can, but with a different type of deal to Norway (one that recognises that the UK is a magnet for low wage migrants hence we need more control over migration compared to other countries bordering the EU).

That would be wording it better. No need for tariffs with the EU, that’s what a free trade deal means of course.

The hurdles will be over regulatory alignment (chlorinated chicken a good example) but I can see everything being done in regards to laws, migration, money and borders. Worst case scenario - a free trade deal with the EU ties us into regulatory alignment but we can still trade freely with other nations and set our own tariffs elsewhere, while taking that alignment into account. That would be a compromise by all parties and not an unpleasant one.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:07 pm

Responding to the Norway attraction debated above by Aggi, while I personally think our size, wealth and unique border sensitivities lend itself to a bespoke deal, there are some aspects of Norways which appeal, and are far from no benefit.

Norway set their own tariffs and have 0 to 10.7% tariffs on clothing and footwear. That would in one fell swoop allow our poor communities to buy cheap shoes or clothing from (say) Bangladesh, hence would be progressive at a time of hardship. The EUs tariffs have been long known to be regressive in forcing consumers to buy expensive EU alternatives.

Norway (in partnership with Iceland and Liechtenstein) can make their own free trade deals around the world. It would thus be of great benefit to be able to order in something from the US or China without one of those nasty custom’s bills associated with it.

Norway are a wealthy country, with GDP per capita more than 60% better than us.

So economically, there would be a huge benefit as long as we can still deal with the EU in the same way. I personally though, think we can do better than Norway’s deal.

randomclaret2 · Post by **randomclaret2** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:38 pm

There have been some shocking uneccessary and incredible comments on this thread but I have to say nothing so far to match Lancaster's " Richard Bacon is excellent "

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:04 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Responding to the Norway attraction debated above by Aggi, while I personally think our size, wealth and unique border sensitivities lend itself to a bespoke deal, there are some aspects of Norways which appeal, and are far from no benefit.
.

And in return for a "Norway type" deal, do you imagine that we would accept the principle of "free movement of people" as they do?
Can't see a Norway type arrangement in which we have to contribute a significant amount of money each week, and yet still accept freedom of movement going down very well in some circles.
The argument that we are in some way superior to other countries and can therefore expect a better deal simply doesn't wash with me - though I would be happy to be wrong.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:19 pm

The more I read about this, and the generally favorable press this is receiving, it strikes me that this could well be Theresa May's Neville Chamberlain moment. It's no more than a "piece of paper" with no guarantees on either side as we move forward into Phase II, (with Phase III even beyond that!). She could easily be out-flanked at the next stage of talks or by disaffected members of her own team.
Boris must once again be dreaming of having his Churchill moment in the next couple of years.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:00 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Responding to the Norway attraction debated above by Aggi, while I personally think our size, wealth and unique border sensitivities lend itself to a bespoke deal, there are some aspects of Norways which appeal, and are far from no benefit.

Norway set their own tariffs and have 0 to 10.7% tariffs on clothing and footwear. That would in one fell swoop allow our poor communities to buy cheap shoes or clothing from (say) Bangladesh, hence would be progressive at a time of hardship. The EUs tariffs have been long known to be regressive in forcing consumers to buy expensive EU alternatives.

Norway (in partnership with Iceland and Liechtenstein) can make their own free trade deals around the world. It would thus be of great benefit to be able to order in something from the US or China without one of those nasty custom’s bills associated with it.

Norway are a wealthy country, with GDP per capita more than 60% better than us.

So economically, there would be a huge benefit as long as we can still deal with the EU in the same way. I personally though, think we can do better than Norway’s deal.

I'm not fully informed about Norway's relationship with the EU, but I don't think we can copy it. Before I go on, I've not read this anywhere, so I might be missing something.

It has been suggested on here that we don't have to have high import tariffs if we want to keep imports cheap. And no - we don't. I responded by saying if our exports are taxed by other countries, but we fail to tax imports (to keep consumer prices low), our already desperate current account balance would balloon and a balance of payments crisis would inevitably follow. Therefore we have no realistic option but to impose import tariffs that at least match export tariffs imposed by others.

But unlike the UK, Norway does have this option. For 20 years Norway has run a vast, twin current account and budget surplus (via oil and hydroelectricity exports). This has resulted in an enormous sovereign wealth fund. They can impose low or zero import tariffs without risking a balance of payments crisis. It appears to me they very much are in a position not to tax imports if they don't want to. We can't.

As such, I can appreciate how the 'Norway Option' suits Norway, but I can't see how the same option would work for us. (If someone is able to correct me on this, I'd be delighted to be informed.)

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:06 pm

There will be a referendum to see if we should have another in out referendum. I get the feeling it is being so deliberately complicated that the Germans in particular will lean on the EU to give us more concessions and we will stay in.