Trade with EU

[PBC_1966]

... The Treasury worked out what proportion of the country's total economic output is made up of exports to the EU. Then it calculated that proportion of the UK labour force. And that's the answer!

And that's supposed to give a result of how many jobs are dependent upon remaining within the EU? Utter nonsense!

 

[Himaginn]

... The Treasury worked out what proportion of the country's total economic output is made up of exports to the EU. Then it calculated that proportion of the UK labour force. And that's the answer!

And that's supposed to give a result of how many jobs are dependent upon remaining within the EU? Utter nonsense!

So what is your projection of jobs lost?
If you want to dismiss it at least provide a counter argument. Utter nonsense just doesn't suffice.

 

[PBC_1966]

I doubt there would be any net loss of jobs over a reasonable period of time.

 

[Himaginn]

I doubt there would be any net loss of jobs over a reasonable period of time.

I can say, without fear of reprisal, that your suggestion is utter nonsense.
Why can I say it without fear of reprisal?
Because your comment is in no way linked, connected to, or makes reference to the possible trade agreement conditions.

It's so obvious:
continued free trade = no affect on trade
Some sort of bilateral agreement will take years = many years of uncertainty = decrease in UK GDP, devaluation of GBP, potential loss of jobs, potential reduction in living standards, etc.
Reliance on WTO regulations = (as well as years of uncertainty) decrease in UK GDP, devaluation of GBP, potential loss of jobs, potential reduction in living standards, etc etc etc.

Your projection is based wholly, but not stated by you, on continued free trade. Whereas my projections are entirly connected and determined by the trade agreement conditions, if any.
That's why I can say your projection is utter nonsense.

 

[Doug99]

I doubt there would be any net loss of jobs over a reasonable period of time.

I can say, without fear of reprisal, that your suggestion is utter nonsense.
Why can I say it without fear of reprisal?
Because your comment is in no way linked, connected to, or makes reference to the possible trade agreement conditions.

It's so obvious:
continued free trade = no affect on trade
Some sort of bilateral agreement will take years = many years of uncertainty = decrease in UK GDP, devaluation of GBP, potential loss of jobs, potential reduction in living standards, etc.
Reliance on WTO regulations = (as well as years of uncertainty) decrease in UK GDP, devaluation of GBP, potential loss of jobs, potential reduction in living standards, etc etc etc.

Your projection is based wholly, but not stated by you, on continued free trade. Whereas my projections are entirly connected and determined by the trade agreement conditions, if any.
That's why I can say your projection is utter nonsense.

David Cameron's recent deal with the EU, which equates to 'treaty change' only took him a matter of weeks to agree. So your timeline projections for trade agreements are not insurmountable.

 

[Himaginn]

David Cameron's recent deal with the EU, which equates to 'treaty change' only took him a matter of weeks to agree. So your timeline projections for trade agreements are not insurmountable.

Yeah, but my projections are based on historical evidence, Switzerland, Canada, China, etc.
What are your ideas based on?
Pub gossip? DM speculation? Jock's urban mythology? F&I's picture postcards?

 

[catnick67]

It would be interesting to know how many jobs in the EU are dependent on exports to the UK, and would the EU wish to put them at risk.

 

[JohnD]

If the answer turned out to be 3%, what would you do with that information?

 

[catnick67]

whats that in thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions?

 

[JohnD]

what would you do with that information?

 

[Doug99]

David Cameron's recent deal with the EU, which equates to 'treaty change' only took him a matter of weeks to agree. So your timeline projections for trade agreements are not insurmountable.

Yeah, but my projections are based on historical evidence, Switzerland, Canada, China, etc.
What are your ideas based on?
Pub gossip? DM speculation? Jock's urban mythology? F&I's picture postcards?

Are you suggesting that Cameron's 'EU deal' hasn't really happened? How much 'historical evidence' do you want regarding timelines?

 

[PBC_1966]

Your projection is based wholly, but not stated by you, on continued free trade. Whereas my projections are entirly connected and determined by the trade agreement conditions, if any. That's why I can say your projection is utter nonsense.

You seem to be completely ignoring trade with the rest of the world, which would then not be regulated by the EU - The U.K. would be free to come to whatever beneficial trade agreements with non-EU countries that it liked.

 

[Himaginn]

David Cameron's recent deal with the EU, which equates to 'treaty change' only took him a matter of weeks to agree. So your timeline projections for trade agreements are not insurmountable.

Yeah, but my projections are based on historical evidence, Switzerland, Canada, China, etc.
What are your ideas based on?
Pub gossip? DM speculation? Jock's urban mythology? F&I's picture postcards?

Are you suggesting that Cameron's 'EU deal' hasn't really happened? How much 'historical evidence' do you want regarding timelines?

Are you comparing apples with oranges?
The recent deal that was done was an agreement to write that agreement in to a Treaty change, depending on the outcome of the referendum.
In the event of a Brexit, no Treaty change is required.
If you like, an analogy, it was like a dressmakers pin or pins, temporarily holding things in place until the garment can go through the process of being machine sewn.
One Trade Agreement is like one wall anchor, requiring a whole set of processes, negotiations and re-negotiations before even one anchor can be set.
A whole array of these anchors are required for successful trading, in a whole array of different walls with different sub-structures and different finishes.

So if you're going to do comparisons, make them comparable examples.
The historical examples that I quoted were examples of real trade deals, and the timelines required to complete them.
We'd have a whole array of these trade deals to complete with a whole array of different countries in the event of not being in a trade deal with EU, and a whole array of trade deals with EU to complete if what the Brexit-ers are calling "our own special agreement", which would depend on the compliance of EU.
Alternatively we'd just have to accept the EFTA agreement, including the Schengen Agreement.
Alternatively, we could just vote to REMAIN.

 

[Himaginn]

Your projection is based wholly, but not stated by you, on continued free trade. Whereas my projections are entirly connected and determined by the trade agreement conditions, if any. That's why I can say your projection is utter nonsense.

You seem to be completely ignoring trade with the rest of the world, which would then not be regulated by the EU - The U.K. would be free to come to whatever beneficial trade agreements with non-EU countries that it liked.

Then why is it not already doing so?
You've asked this question before, twice.
John has answered it, I've answered it, now twice.
How many more times do you intend asking it?
Until you get the answer that you think is right, no doubt.

 

[PBC_1966]

Then why is it not already doing so?

Because while within the EU the U.K. is trapped by the EU's regulations about trade with the rest of the world. Don't you understand that the EU doesn't only dictate how trade is carried out between member countries, but also how any one member country trades with the non-EU world? The EU even dictates how trade is carried out entirely within the U.K. Then they have the nerve to talk about "free trade."