Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

EU, Brexit and Immigration

The Big Picture Place
PeterGray
Lemon Slice
Posts: 847
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 782 times
Been thanked: 343 times

EU, Brexit and Immigration

#506148

Postby PeterGray » June 9th, 2022, 6:51 pm

Moderator Message:
This topic has been split from the topic "GBP and EUR v USD over last 10 years" Please excuse old titles remaining


The problem is that the difficulties facing industries, such as sea foods that you mention, are inherent to the type of Brexit chosen by this goverment. The EU and the single market exist for a a number of reasons, but primarily to allow frictionless trade over most of a continent. If the UK decides not only to leave, but to declare intent to diverge things like food standards then there is no realisitic alternative to the sorts of checks that now take place. The idea that a country can choose to be outside, and aim to compete (whether that is at all possible or not) by doing things like changing food standards, employment rights, "red tape" (whatever that is) but also expect free movement of it's products into the EU is nonsnese. There was an opporunity, negotiated by May, to agree that UK standards would follow those of the EU, and while that continued frictionless movement could remain, but Johnson used rejection of that to gain office, and created the mess we currently have in NI and EU relations. If the UK economy wants to compete by not being in the EU then it will have to face the same barriers that all other non EU countries without special deals do in trading with it.

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6364
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1530 times
Been thanked: 959 times

Re: GBP and EUR v USD over last 10 years

#506156

Postby odysseus2000 » June 9th, 2022, 7:24 pm

PeterGray wrote:The problem is that the difficulties facing industries, such as sea foods that you mention, are inherent to the type of Brexit chosen by this goverment. The EU and the single market exist for a a number of reasons, but primarily to allow frictionless trade over most of a continent. If the UK decides not only to leave, but to declare intent to diverge things like food standards then there is no realisitic alternative to the sorts of checks that now take place. The idea that a country can choose to be outside, and aim to compete (whether that is at all possible or not) by doing things like changing food standards, employment rights, "red tape" (whatever that is) but also expect free movement of it's products into the EU is nonsnese. There was an opporunity, negotiated by May, to agree that UK standards would follow those of the EU, and while that continued frictionless movement could remain, but Johnson used rejection of that to gain office, and created the mess we currently have in NI and EU relations. If the UK economy wants to compete by not being in the EU then it will have to face the same barriers that all other non EU countries without special deals do in trading with it.


Yes, but equally if the EU want harmonisation only for their member in the EU, then that allows the UK to set duties on say European manufactured goods that reflect what suits our economy, potentially re-directing say tariffs on European cars to support UK sea food industries. That kind of tariff arrangement is what nations generally negotiate to support their own industries.

Regards,

CliffEdge
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1554
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 9:56 am
Has thanked: 452 times
Been thanked: 434 times

Re: GBP and EUR v USD over last 10 years

#506176

Postby CliffEdge » June 9th, 2022, 8:53 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:
PeterGray wrote:The problem is that the difficulties facing industries, such as sea foods that you mention, are inherent to the type of Brexit chosen by this goverment. The EU and the single market exist for a a number of reasons, but primarily to allow frictionless trade over most of a continent. If the UK decides not only to leave, but to declare intent to diverge things like food standards then there is no realisitic alternative to the sorts of checks that now take place. The idea that a country can choose to be outside, and aim to compete (whether that is at all possible or not) by doing things like changing food standards, employment rights, "red tape" (whatever that is) but also expect free movement of it's products into the EU is nonsnese. There was an opporunity, negotiated by May, to agree that UK standards would follow those of the EU, and while that continued frictionless movement could remain, but Johnson used rejection of that to gain office, and created the mess we currently have in NI and EU relations. If the UK economy wants to compete by not being in the EU then it will have to face the same barriers that all other non EU countries without special deals do in trading with it.


Yes, but equally if the EU want harmonisation only for their member in the EU, then that allows the UK to set duties on say European manufactured goods that reflect what suits our economy, potentially re-directing say tariffs on European cars to support UK sea food industries. That kind of tariff arrangement is what nations generally negotiate to support their own industries.

Regards,

I'm not saying the seafood industry is inefficient but fas let's say it is . Tariffs on imported cars drive up the price for UK consumers and the money is used to support an inefficient industry. Sounds more like the USSR than the sunlit uplands.

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6364
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1530 times
Been thanked: 959 times

Re: GBP and EUR v USD over last 10 years

#506177

Postby odysseus2000 » June 9th, 2022, 9:01 pm

Sounds like capitalism to me. One nation raises trade barriers, other nation raises other trade barriers. Diplomats come in & some centre ground that both sides don’t like gets negotiated & trade flows.

Regards,

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: GBP and EUR v USD over last 10 years

#506191

Postby servodude » June 9th, 2022, 10:45 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:Sounds like capitalism to me. One nation raises trade barriers, other nation raises other trade barriers. Diplomats come in & some centre ground that both sides don’t like gets negotiated & trade flows.

Regards,


That sounds more like protectionism than capitalism
- just going by the definitions and such

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6364
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1530 times
Been thanked: 959 times

Re: GBP and EUR v USD over last 10 years

#506197

Postby odysseus2000 » June 9th, 2022, 11:30 pm

servodude wrote:
odysseus2000 wrote:Sounds like capitalism to me. One nation raises trade barriers, other nation raises other trade barriers. Diplomats come in & some centre ground that both sides don’t like gets negotiated & trade flows.

Regards,


That sounds more like protectionism than capitalism
- just going by the definitions and such


Capitalism has to operate with rules that are roughly fair and don't severely disadvantage either side.

Protectionism is about over use of taxes to protect industries and at the same time make goods very expensive for those who need and/or want them.

The corn laws that protected uk agriculture but made wheat products too expensive are one example of where things go out of hand, but in general the trade organisations create systems that allow relatively low prices and do not cause industries to collapse.

Regards,

PeterGray
Lemon Slice
Posts: 847
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 782 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: GBP and EUR v USD over last 10 years

#506233

Postby PeterGray » June 10th, 2022, 9:31 am

Yes, but equally if the EU want harmonisation only for their member in the EU, then that allows the UK to set duties on say European manufactured goods that reflect what suits our economy, potentially re-directing say tariffs on European cars to support UK sea food industries. That kind of tariff arrangement is what nations generally negotiate to support their own industries.


1. It's not the EU that wants harmonisation only for its members - it's the UK that has said it doesn't want to harmonise - which is why the problems with the NIP, fish exports etc arise.
2. Protectionist tarrifs on things like cars are how to make the economy shrink still futher, and it's also not what Leave promised - lots of free trade deals around the world. Most have not materialised, the ones that have are mainly small beer, or no better, and in cases worse that we would have had in the EU.
3. In the meantime the UK is expected to have the lowest rate of growth in the G20, excluding sanctioned Russia, and has lost significant trade since 2016.

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6364
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1530 times
Been thanked: 959 times

Re: GBP and EUR v USD over last 10 years

#506388

Postby odysseus2000 » June 10th, 2022, 11:04 pm

PeterGray wrote:Yes, but equally if the EU want harmonisation only for their member in the EU, then that allows the UK to set duties on say European manufactured goods that reflect what suits our economy, potentially re-directing say tariffs on European cars to support UK sea food industries. That kind of tariff arrangement is what nations generally negotiate to support their own industries.


1. It's not the EU that wants harmonisation only for its members - it's the UK that has said it doesn't want to harmonise - which is why the problems with the NIP, fish exports etc arise.
2. Protectionist tarrifs on things like cars are how to make the economy shrink still futher, and it's also not what Leave promised - lots of free trade deals around the world. Most have not materialised, the ones that have are mainly small beer, or no better, and in cases worse that we would have had in the EU.
3. In the meantime the UK is expected to have the lowest rate of growth in the G20, excluding sanctioned Russia, and has lost significant trade since 2016.


Prior to Brexit there were no issues for UK seafoods. Post Brexit there are and as nothing has changed in catch and processing, the EU are simply being difficult and that is why one has trade negotiations which are a common world wide phenomenon and not protectionism.

The trade picture is mixed with both UK to EU exports and EU to UK imports falling, albeit with data distorted by Covid:

https://obr.uk/box/the-latest-evidence- ... -uk-trade/

In terms of economic growth the estimates for 2023 are indeed low for the UK, but those for 2022 are above many other EU nations and one can not take too much from predictions that are often way off what happens:

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO ... april-2022

Clearly the weak £ v the Euro will help UK exporters and hurt imports from the EU.

Regards,

PeterGray
Lemon Slice
Posts: 847
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 782 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: GBP and EUR v USD over last 10 years

#506443

Postby PeterGray » June 11th, 2022, 9:14 am

Prior to Brexit there were no issues for UK seafoods. Post Brexit there are and as nothing has changed in catch and processing, the EU are simply being difficult and that is why one has trade negotiations which are a common world wide phenomenon and not protectionism.

What a load of delusional nonsense! Yes prior to Brexit there were no issues for seafood. Correct. Afterwards there are. Why? The UK chose to leave a trading block which was set up precisely to allow easy trade in things like sea foods. The UK chose to leave those agreements, but somehow you think the fault lies with the EU for not giving the UK the full access it used to have to EU markets, while having none of the obligations - such as in this case ensuring we follow the same food and hygene standards. Membgers of the UK govet have repeatedly said they want our food standards, amongst others, to diverge from the EU. They see it as "benefit" of Brexit. How then could you expect the EU to allow UK seafood in with out checks as if nothing had changed?

It would of course be perfectly possible to negotiate a deal in which these problems were avoided by the UK agreeing to keep things like seafood hygene regulations in line with those of the EU. That's pretty much what May negotiated, which also avoided the need for the Irish sea border that Johnson negotiated. Unfortunately our current govt rejected that approach, and the results were inevitable.

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6364
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1530 times
Been thanked: 959 times

Re: GBP and EUR v USD over last 10 years

#506480

Postby odysseus2000 » June 11th, 2022, 12:15 pm

PeterGray wrote:Prior to Brexit there were no issues for UK seafoods. Post Brexit there are and as nothing has changed in catch and processing, the EU are simply being difficult and that is why one has trade negotiations which are a common world wide phenomenon and not protectionism.

What a load of delusional nonsense! Yes prior to Brexit there were no issues for seafood. Correct. Afterwards there are. Why? The UK chose to leave a trading block which was set up precisely to allow easy trade in things like sea foods. The UK chose to leave those agreements, but somehow you think the fault lies with the EU for not giving the UK the full access it used to have to EU markets, while having none of the obligations - such as in this case ensuring we follow the same food and hygene standards. Membgers of the UK govet have repeatedly said they want our food standards, amongst others, to diverge from the EU. They see it as "benefit" of Brexit. How then could you expect the EU to allow UK seafood in with out checks as if nothing had changed?

It would of course be perfectly possible to negotiate a deal in which these problems were avoided by the UK agreeing to keep things like seafood hygene regulations in line with those of the EU. That's pretty much what May negotiated, which also avoided the need for the Irish sea border that Johnson negotiated. Unfortunately our current govt rejected that approach, and the results were inevitable.


So as far as I understand your position, it is that the EU can use protectionist measures to cause the price of seafood to rise to its consumers across all income classes and call it the rules of a single market, whereas if the UK was to impose some compensatory tariffs on luxury goods (like high price cars or expensive French wine that would not hurt lower income people) that would be protectionism.

The whole approach of the EU has been to proceed in bad faith, a policy that will likely eventually lead to the UK ripping up the ridiculous agreement that Lord Frost made an horlicks of, leaving the European Human rights act and a whole host of other stuff that the EU will not like. All of this should have been done after Brexit leading to trade governed by the World Trade Organisation but being governed by a remain minded PM trying to leave open as many door for a later re-join as possible as lead to the current mess. As things now are we have the seeds of a very long and protracted struggle between those who want the UK to rejoin the EU and those who want to break free. If the EU wanted they could have accepted the UK position and acted in good faith in the belief that if their system was good then the UK would eventually fail and have to come back, cap in hand. As is the EU seem terrified that the UK can succeed as an independent nation and they are set about making that as difficult as possible, aided by the divided UK parliament and divided governing party. The whole mess is doing no one any good, keeping old wounds open and making new wounds as the two power blocks uneasily move like entwined brambles blown by the cruel and unpredictable winds of the world.

As my original charts showed the Euro has faired very similarly to the £ with reference to the $, the reserve currency of the world which is not unexpected as the Euro area has low growth and continues to fall behind the US, China and India doing nothing but to continue the relative under performance of the European area and the UK as these areas squabble internally and fail to focus on their international competitiveness.

Regards,

ursaminortaur
Lemon Half
Posts: 6944
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 447 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: GBP and EUR v USD over last 10 years

#506504

Postby ursaminortaur » June 11th, 2022, 1:56 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:
PeterGray wrote:Prior to Brexit there were no issues for UK seafoods. Post Brexit there are and as nothing has changed in catch and processing, the EU are simply being difficult and that is why one has trade negotiations which are a common world wide phenomenon and not protectionism.

What a load of delusional nonsense! Yes prior to Brexit there were no issues for seafood. Correct. Afterwards there are. Why? The UK chose to leave a trading block which was set up precisely to allow easy trade in things like sea foods. The UK chose to leave those agreements, but somehow you think the fault lies with the EU for not giving the UK the full access it used to have to EU markets, while having none of the obligations - such as in this case ensuring we follow the same food and hygene standards. Membgers of the UK govet have repeatedly said they want our food standards, amongst others, to diverge from the EU. They see it as "benefit" of Brexit. How then could you expect the EU to allow UK seafood in with out checks as if nothing had changed?

It would of course be perfectly possible to negotiate a deal in which these problems were avoided by the UK agreeing to keep things like seafood hygene regulations in line with those of the EU. That's pretty much what May negotiated, which also avoided the need for the Irish sea border that Johnson negotiated. Unfortunately our current govt rejected that approach, and the results were inevitable.


So as far as I understand your position, it is that the EU can use protectionist measures to cause the price of seafood to rise to its consumers across all income classes and call it the rules of a single market, whereas if the UK was to impose some compensatory tariffs on luxury goods (like high price cars or expensive French wine that would not hurt lower income people) that would be protectionism.

The whole approach of the EU has been to proceed in bad faith, a policy that will likely eventually lead to the UK ripping up the ridiculous agreement that Lord Frost made an horlicks of, leaving the European Human rights act and a whole host of other stuff that the EU will not like. All of this should have been done after Brexit leading to trade governed by the World Trade Organisation but being governed by a remain minded PM trying to leave open as many door for a later re-join as possible as lead to the current mess. As things now are we have the seeds of a very long and protracted struggle between those who want the UK to rejoin the EU and those who want to break free. If the EU wanted they could have accepted the UK position and acted in good faith in the belief that if their system was good then the UK would eventually fail and have to come back, cap in hand. As is the EU seem terrified that the UK can succeed as an independent nation and they are set about making that as difficult as possible, aided by the divided UK parliament and divided governing party. The whole mess is doing no one any good, keeping old wounds open and making new wounds as the two power blocks uneasily move like entwined brambles blown by the cruel and unpredictable winds of the world.

As my original charts showed the Euro has faired very similarly to the £ with reference to the $, the reserve currency of the world which is not unexpected as the Euro area has low growth and continues to fall behind the US, China and India doing nothing but to continue the relative under performance of the European area and the UK as these areas squabble internally and fail to focus on their international competitiveness.

Regards,


The TCA which the UK negotiated with the EU gets rid of tariffs so to impose tariffs on particular goods would mean tearing up the TCA and end up with the UK and EU both imposing tariffs making trade between them even more costly than it is now. The current problems that the UK has are to do with non-tariff barriers and the government's insistence on the right to diverge (even though in many areas there is little sign that they will diverge and little reason to do so). The Single market is by definition protectionist since those within it benefit from it whereas those outside do not - however that is true of any FTA (those countries party to the FTA get better trade conditions than those who do not have such an FTA and instead trade on WTO terms). That is just the nature of trade agreements. By virtue of the fact that the EU has many more FTAs than any other country or trade block it is in fact one of the least protectionist trading areas. Unfortunately the UK could under this government only agree a rather threadbare limited FTA because of its ideological concerns with sovereignty and the theoretical right to diverge which leaves it subject to lots of non-tariff barriers which a better deal (or the current deal supplemented with things like an SPS - Sanitary and Phytosanitary - agreement) would remove.

PS 1. Going to WTO terms and then negotiating a trade deal with the EU afterwards would have devasted UK industry. When Article 50 was written not enough time was allowed for both the withdrawal and negotiating the new trading arrangement hence the need for May to ask for additional time in the form of the transition period to prevent us having to have a period of trading under purely WTO terms.

PS 2. As to the Human Rights act, apart from the fact that all EU members are required to have signed up to it, it has nothing to do with the EU. The UK's Human Rights act is the implementation in UK law of the European Convention on Human Rights ( ECHR ) which is run by the Council of Europe which is a separate body from the EU and contains 47 member states. It is also worth noting that the ECHR was largely written by the UK and specifically the British lawyer and Conservative politician David Maxwell Fyfe who based it upon the rights that he believed the British had at that time.

PeterGray
Lemon Slice
Posts: 847
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 782 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: GBP and EUR v USD over last 10 years

#506517

Postby PeterGray » June 11th, 2022, 3:56 pm

So as far as I understand your position, it is that the EU can use protectionist measures to cause the price of seafood to rise to its consumers across all income classes and call it the rules of a single market, whereas if the UK was to impose some compensatory tariffs on luxury goods (like high price cars or expensive French wine that would not hurt lower income people) that would be protectionism.

The whole approach of the EU has been to proceed in bad faith


The issue with seafood is relates to food hygene rules, not tariffs. It is not protectionist for a country, or trading block, to have rules about what can be imported, or needs inspecting, to ensure food safety. Otherwise you are arguing that the UK, and any other country, should let in unchecked food from anywhere which may be of a low standard or carry a high risk of introducing infection into the country. I doubt many would agree with that, and since we are now a 3rd country to the EU (entirely by our choice) it is inevitable that some form of assurances are required for UK produce to be imported to the EU. The UK refused a possible deal that would have eliminated need for such checks as long as we kept our regulations consistent with EU ones, so the outcome was our choice, and entirely predictable.

I haven't argued here for or against tariffs on imports from the EU. However, since that nullify our existing trade deal the UK would almost certainly fare far worse than the the EU in such a case, so it would seem highly inadvisable (which of course does not mean it's a course our current govt might not end up choosing)

The only clear cut potential bad faith on either side in the post Brexit agreements would be if our govt drew up legislation allowing the UK to break an internationall agreement that our current PM signed and sold as a "great deal" less than 3 years ago, as they are now saying they will do.

CliffEdge
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1554
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 9:56 am
Has thanked: 452 times
Been thanked: 434 times

EU, Brexit and Immigration

#506520

Postby CliffEdge » June 11th, 2022, 4:04 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:
PeterGray wrote:Prior to Brexit there were no issues for UK seafoods. Post Brexit there are and as nothing has changed in catch and processing, the EU are simply being difficult and that is why one has trade negotiations which are a common world wide phenomenon and not protectionism.

What a load of delusional nonsense! Yes prior to Brexit there were no issues for seafood. Correct. Afterwards there are. Why? The UK chose to leave a trading block which was set up precisely to allow easy trade in things like sea foods. The UK chose to leave those agreements, but somehow you think the fault lies with the EU for not giving the UK the full access it used to have to EU markets, while having none of the obligations - such as in this case ensuring we follow the same food and hygene standards. Membgers of the UK govet have repeatedly said they want our food standards, amongst others, to diverge from the EU. They see it as "benefit" of Brexit. How then could you expect the EU to allow UK seafood in with out checks as if nothing had changed?

It would of course be perfectly possible to negotiate a deal in which these problems were avoided by the UK agreeing to keep things like seafood hygene regulations in line with those of the EU. That's pretty much what May negotiated, which also avoided the need for the Irish sea border that Johnson negotiated. Unfortunately our current govt rejected that approach, and the results were inevitable.


So as far as I understand your position, it is that the EU can use protectionist measures to cause the price of seafood to rise to its consumers across all income classes and call it the rules of a single market, whereas if the UK was to impose some compensatory tariffs on luxury goods (like high price cars or expensive French wine that would not hurt lower income people) that would be protectionism.

The whole approach of the EU has been to proceed in bad faith, a policy that will likely eventually lead to the UK ripping up the ridiculous agreement that Lord Frost made an horlicks of, leaving the European Human rights act and a whole host of other stuff that the EU will not like. All of this should have been done after Brexit leading to trade governed by the World Trade Organisation but being governed by a remain minded PM trying to leave open as many door for a later re-join as possible as lead to the current mess. As things now are we have the seeds of a very long and protracted struggle between those who want the UK to rejoin the EU and those who want to break free. If the EU wanted they could have accepted the UK position and acted in good faith in the belief that if their system was good then the UK would eventually fail and have to come back, cap in hand. As is the EU seem terrified that the UK can succeed as an independent nation and they are set about making that as difficult as possible, aided by the divided UK parliament and divided governing party. The whole mess is doing no one any good, keeping old wounds open and making new wounds as the two power blocks uneasily move like entwined brambles blown by the cruel and unpredictable winds of the world.

As my original charts showed the Euro has faired very similarly to the £ with reference to the $, the reserve currency of the world which is not unexpected as the Euro area has low growth and continues to fall behind the US, China and India doing nothing but to continue the relative under performance of the European area and the UK as these areas squabble internally and fail to focus on their international competitiveness.

Regards,

What will you suggest next, filling in the channel tunnel? Your beliefs span a wide range.

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6364
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1530 times
Been thanked: 959 times

Re: GBP and EUR v USD over last 10 years

#506578

Postby odysseus2000 » June 12th, 2022, 12:47 am

ursaminotaur
The TCA which the UK negotiated with the EU gets rid of tariffs so to impose tariffs on particular goods would mean tearing up the TCA and end up with the UK and EU both imposing tariffs making trade between them even more costly than it is now. The current problems that the UK has are to do with non-tariff barriers and the government's insistence on the right to diverge (even though in many areas there is little sign that they will diverge and little reason to do so). The Single market is by definition protectionist since those within it benefit from it whereas those outside do not - however that is true of any FTA (those countries party to the FTA get better trade conditions than those who do not have such an FTA and instead trade on WTO terms). That is just the nature of trade agreements. By virtue of the fact that the EU has many more FTAs than any other country or trade block it is in fact one of the least protectionist trading areas. Unfortunately the UK could under this government only agree a rather threadbare limited FTA because of its ideological concerns with sovereignty and the theoretical right to diverge which leaves it subject to lots of non-tariff barriers which a better deal (or the current deal supplemented with things like an SPS - Sanitary and Phytosanitary - agreement) would remove.

PS 1. Going to WTO terms and then negotiating a trade deal with the EU afterwards would have devasted UK industry. When Article 50 was written not enough time was allowed for both the withdrawal and negotiating the new trading arrangement hence the need for May to ask for additional time in the form of the transition period to prevent us having to have a period of trading under purely WTO terms.

PS 2. As to the Human Rights act, apart from the fact that all EU members are required to have signed up to it, it has nothing to do with the EU. The UK's Human Rights act is the implementation in UK law of the European Convention on Human Rights ( ECHR ) which is run by the Council of Europe which is a separate body from the EU and contains 47 member states. It is also worth noting that the ECHR was largely written by the UK and specifically the British lawyer and Conservative politician David Maxwell Fyfe who based it upon the rights that he believed the British had at that time.


Much of the current trouble comes down to the EU acting in bad will.

The whole idea that the UK may diverge from the procedures laid down for many products by the EU as an excuse to make it near impossible to export various goods that have not diverged from what was acceptable before Brexit is a clear example of bad will.

A very similar situation exists regarding Northern Ireland.

Another example is the dumping of economic migrants on the UK from France.

For international relations to work, good will is a necessary requirement.

If the UK leaving the EU was economic suicide and that the UK can not survive outside to the EU then the obvious solution is to let the UK do what ever it wants, sure in the knowledge that it will hang itself and come back pleading for re-admission.

If however, the EU fears a successful UK would lead to other nations leaving, the bad will that has existed since Brexit is clearly explained.

As things are the UK looks to be on a path of lingering connections that boost the hopes of the re-joiners that the UK will eventually rejoin competing with another group within the UK who wants to sever all connections leading to immense internal friction that will do no one any good and is in itself a clear signal that a democratic choice is not accepted by the politicians.

I have no idea what will happen but at this point a clean break looks the best option as the EU have acted to sour relations and all the benefits of united purpose within the UK are being lost with the potential for this to continue until some re-join party gets a mandate and then a whole host of new negotiations paralyse things for another several years.

Regards,

odysseus2000
Lemon Half
Posts: 6364
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 1530 times
Been thanked: 959 times

Re: GBP and EUR v USD over last 10 years

#506579

Postby odysseus2000 » June 12th, 2022, 12:49 am

Peter Gray
The only clear cut potential bad faith on either side in the post Brexit agreements would be if our govt drew up legislation allowing the UK to break an internationall agreement that our current PM signed and sold as a "great deal" less than 3 years ago, as they are now saying they will do.


If, as is obvious, the "great deal' is not great then the only thing to do is break it and make something better.

Regards,

PeterGray
Lemon Slice
Posts: 847
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 782 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: GBP and EUR v USD over last 10 years

#506604

Postby PeterGray » June 12th, 2022, 10:13 am

If, as is obvious, the "great deal' is not great then the only thing to do is break it and make something better.

Well, I partlly agree with that. The problem is that the govt and the DUP want to break it and make it worse. If the govt were to start seriously negotiating for closer ties, agreements of standards etc, reducing the need for a lot of the checks both cross channel and in or on the way to Ireland then I'd be the first to welcome it.

But there's no need to break the existing internationally agreed deal to do that. All that can all be done within the context of the existing agreement, possibly ultimately leading to its replacement on mutually agreed terms.

The problem is that Johnson gained power by rejecting attempts to do just that, and is being pushed to make things even worse by breaking an international agreement, which if carried out is likely to lead to loss of our trade deal with the EU and preventing one with the US as well as undermining UK credibility still further.

PeterGray
Lemon Slice
Posts: 847
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 782 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: GBP and EUR v USD over last 10 years

#506606

Postby PeterGray » June 12th, 2022, 10:17 am

Much of the current trouble comes down to the EU acting in bad will.

You keep repeating this. With no evidence. This is a continual refrain of hard Brexiteers who either imagined that the EU would understand the UK's preeminent position in the world, tug its forelock and let the UK have all the benefits of EU membership without any of those troublesome details like committing to shared standards. Or those who refuse to accept that things are turning out pretty much as many warned beforehand, but simply cannot face up to it.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Half
Posts: 6944
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 447 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: GBP and EUR v USD over last 10 years

#506668

Postby ursaminortaur » June 12th, 2022, 2:12 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:
ursaminotaur
The TCA which the UK negotiated with the EU gets rid of tariffs so to impose tariffs on particular goods would mean tearing up the TCA and end up with the UK and EU both imposing tariffs making trade between them even more costly than it is now. The current problems that the UK has are to do with non-tariff barriers and the government's insistence on the right to diverge (even though in many areas there is little sign that they will diverge and little reason to do so). The Single market is by definition protectionist since those within it benefit from it whereas those outside do not - however that is true of any FTA (those countries party to the FTA get better trade conditions than those who do not have such an FTA and instead trade on WTO terms). That is just the nature of trade agreements. By virtue of the fact that the EU has many more FTAs than any other country or trade block it is in fact one of the least protectionist trading areas. Unfortunately the UK could under this government only agree a rather threadbare limited FTA because of its ideological concerns with sovereignty and the theoretical right to diverge which leaves it subject to lots of non-tariff barriers which a better deal (or the current deal supplemented with things like an SPS - Sanitary and Phytosanitary - agreement) would remove.

PS 1. Going to WTO terms and then negotiating a trade deal with the EU afterwards would have devasted UK industry. When Article 50 was written not enough time was allowed for both the withdrawal and negotiating the new trading arrangement hence the need for May to ask for additional time in the form of the transition period to prevent us having to have a period of trading under purely WTO terms.

PS 2. As to the Human Rights act, apart from the fact that all EU members are required to have signed up to it, it has nothing to do with the EU. The UK's Human Rights act is the implementation in UK law of the European Convention on Human Rights ( ECHR ) which is run by the Council of Europe which is a separate body from the EU and contains 47 member states. It is also worth noting that the ECHR was largely written by the UK and specifically the British lawyer and Conservative politician David Maxwell Fyfe who based it upon the rights that he believed the British had at that time.


Much of the current trouble comes down to the EU acting in bad will.

The whole idea that the UK may diverge from the procedures laid down for many products by the EU as an excuse to make it near impossible to export various goods that have not diverged from what was acceptable before Brexit is a clear example of bad will.


When in the EU the UK's adherence to Single Market standards was underpinned legally by the CJEU that is no longer the case and the UK government could make changes at any time since they talk about wishing to diverge. The UK government have talked constantly about diverging hence it makes sense for the EU to implement checks immediately rather than being caught on the hop and having to quickly implement changes in response to UK changes - besides which the WTO MFN rule means that they have to treat all countries in the same way unless there are specific agreements in an FTA (and there aren't specific agreements in the EU-UK FTA - the TCA - because the UK wants the ability to diverge but can't specifically define how it wants to diverge).

odysseus2000 wrote:A very similar situation exists regarding Northern Ireland.

Another example is the dumping of economic migrants on the UK from France.


Almost three-quarters of asylum applications are successful straight-way and around half of those initially rejected are then successful on appeal. Hence these asylum seekers are overwhelmingly refugees and NOT economic migrants.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to

Almost three quarters (72%) of the initial decisions in 2021 were grants (of asylum, humanitarian protection or alternative forms of leave), which is substantially higher than the previous years. For much of the past decade, around a third of initial decisions were grants. The grant rate in 2021 is the highest grant rate in over thirty years (since 82% in 1990).

The low number of refusals in 2021 is predominantly related to a 98% decrease in third country refusals (from 2,952 in 2020 to 50 in 2021). A third country refusal refers to the UK determining that it is not the country responsible for considering a person’s asylum claim, to return them to the safe third country in which the person was previously present or with which they have some other connection. The use of this decision outcome has been affected by the UK leaving the EU. Prior to leaving the EU, the UK processed most third country cases in accordance with the Dublin regulation (which applies to all EU member states as well as Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein); however, this ceased to apply to the UK from 1 January 2021.
.
.
.
Of the appeals resolved in 2021, almost half (49%) were allowed (meaning the applicant successfully overturned the initial decision).


Note. The reference to the percentages bing up because the UK can no longer return asylum seekers to other EU countries under the Dublin regulations which is something that the UK decided it didn't want to be part of after brexit

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/asylum-policy-after-brexit/

No agreement was reached on asylum policy in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) between the UK and EU.

As a result, at the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020, the Dublin III Regulation, EURODAC and all other elements of the CEAS ceased to apply to the UK.

During the negotiations, the UK government was clear that it did not want to remain part of Dublin III as a third party. Initially, the UK was interested in maintaining access to EURODAC but eventually stopped pursuing this.


The Geneva convention on refugees does not require that an asylum seeker stays in the first safe country that they reach and such a requirement would be impractical as it would mean that all such refugees would be dumped on the immediate neighbours of the countries from which asylum seekers were fleeing who wouldn't be able to cope.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.

CliffEdge
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1554
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 9:56 am
Has thanked: 452 times
Been thanked: 434 times

Re: GBP and EUR v USD over last 10 years

#506681

Postby CliffEdge » June 12th, 2022, 3:28 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:
ursaminotaur
The TCA which the UK negotiated with the EU gets rid of tariffs so to impose tariffs on particular goods would mean tearing up the TCA and end up with the UK and EU both imposing tariffs making trade between them even more costly than it is now. The current problems that the UK has are to do with non-tariff barriers and the government's insistence on the right to diverge (even though in many areas there is little sign that they will diverge and little reason to do so). The Single market is by definition protectionist since those within it benefit from it whereas those outside do not - however that is true of any FTA (those countries party to the FTA get better trade conditions than those who do not have such an FTA and instead trade on WTO terms). That is just the nature of trade agreements. By virtue of the fact that the EU has many more FTAs than any other country or trade block it is in fact one of the least protectionist trading areas. Unfortunately the UK could under this government only agree a rather threadbare limited FTA because of its ideological concerns with sovereignty and the theoretical right to diverge which leaves it subject to lots of non-tariff barriers which a better deal (or the current deal supplemented with things like an SPS - Sanitary and Phytosanitary - agreement) would remove.

PS 1. Going to WTO terms and then negotiating a trade deal with the EU afterwards would have devasted UK industry. When Article 50 was written not enough time was allowed for both the withdrawal and negotiating the new trading arrangement hence the need for May to ask for additional time in the form of the transition period to prevent us having to have a period of trading under purely WTO terms.

PS 2. As to the Human Rights act, apart from the fact that all EU members are required to have signed up to it, it has nothing to do with the EU. The UK's Human Rights act is the implementation in UK law of the European Convention on Human Rights ( ECHR ) which is run by the Council of Europe which is a separate body from the EU and contains 47 member states. It is also worth noting that the ECHR was largely written by the UK and specifically the British lawyer and Conservative politician David Maxwell Fyfe who based it upon the rights that he believed the British had at that time.


Much of the current trouble comes down to the EU acting in bad will.

The whole idea that the UK may diverge from the procedures laid down for many products by the EU as an excuse to make it near impossible to export various goods that have not diverged from what was acceptable before Brexit is a clear example of bad will.

A very similar situation exists regarding Northern Ireland.

Another example is the dumping of economic migrants on the UK from France.

For international relations to work, good will is a necessary requirement.

If the UK leaving the EU was economic suicide and that the UK can not survive outside to the EU then the obvious solution is to let the UK do what ever it wants, sure in the knowledge that it will hang itself and come back pleading for re-admission.

If however, the EU fears a successful UK would lead to other nations leaving, the bad will that has existed since Brexit is clearly explained.

As things are the UK looks to be on a path of lingering connections that boost the hopes of the re-joiners that the UK will eventually rejoin competing with another group within the UK who wants to sever all connections leading to immense internal friction that will do no one any good and is in itself a clear signal that a democratic choice is not accepted by the politicians.

I have no idea what will happen but at this point a clean break looks the best option as the EU have acted to sour relations and all the benefits of united purpose within the UK are being lost with the potential for this to continue until some re-join party gets a mandate and then a whole host of new negotiations paralyse things for another several years.

Regards,

Do you really understand what a "clean break" means and the effect it will have on our economy and standard of living? But bring it on, tomorrow if possible, I'll stay away from the riots and enjoy the Mussolini effect on the honourables in govt.

And then we can get down to behaving like a sane modern trading nation again.

PeterGray
Lemon Slice
Posts: 847
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:18 am
Has thanked: 782 times
Been thanked: 343 times

Re: GBP and EUR v USD over last 10 years

#506699

Postby PeterGray » June 12th, 2022, 4:56 pm

odysseus2000 wrote:
...
Another example is the dumping of economic migrants on the UK from France.
...



You really have no idea what you are talking about!

1. France has twice as many asylum applications as the UK. The Faragist myth that they all want to come to the UK is rubbish, most stay in France (or even more in Germany)
2. Over 75% of those applying for asylum in the UK are approved - so economic migrants are a minority, the majority qualify under international law for asylum - this will apply to most of those being deported to Rwanda too.
3. While in the EU the Dublin agreement gave some rights for refugees to be returned to France. The UK chose to leave that agreement with Brexit.


Return to “Macro and Global Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests