Timmy elsewhereFebruary 29, 2016 Tim WorstallTimmy Elsewhere21 CommentsBritain’s Government Announces Itself To Be Blitheringly Incompetent previousAnti-extremism always does degenerate into anti-what we don’t approve ofnextThese people aren’t just mad they’re fascists 21 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere” Jonathan T February 29, 2016 at 2:23 pm What about the negotiations needed with other countries to get the best deals for British exporters in terms of tariff and non-tariff measures facing the export of British products and services? Might that not take longer than a short afternoon…? BlokeonaMotorway February 29, 2016 at 2:48 pm Would this be an effect of the EU itself? Given the split between national and EU competencies, I’d imagine the required capabilities and institutional knowledge would eventually wither and die at national level. MWAM February 29, 2016 at 3:10 pm Turn off Adblocker and Forbes kindly plants 23 ad trackers. Pfft. Maarten February 29, 2016 at 3:16 pm It’s only testing for DoubleClick – the rest can stay blocked. I have to say, I’m all for owners to have the ability to monetise their sites, (and will happily whitelist advertising on sites like this one) but Forbes is just a deluge of creepy stuff. Dave February 29, 2016 at 3:28 pm How is it creepy? I’ll never understand that. It’s no more creepy ‘tracking’ than a virus scanner is creepily ‘reading your email’. And given the massive benefits to you, it’s hard to see what’s objectionable: do you _like_ untargeted ads, or would you rather see a lot less irrelevant advertising? john square February 29, 2016 at 3:52 pm Every now and then I search for guitars for sale on Google, then for weeks afterwards I get loads of nice ads about cheap guitars. Improves some of the sites I visit no end Johnnydub February 29, 2016 at 5:00 pm Re: Jonathan T As Timmy points out in his artivle, the WTO recommends/mandates a max tariff of 2.5%. If the EU want a bigger tariff, the tit for tat hurts them more than us. Plus the EU documents states (in article 8 of the LIsbon treaty I think) that their goal is a tariff free trade relationship with their neighbours outside the EU. Ultimately if the EU wants to “punish” us we’re better getting the fuck away from those tossers anyway. CJ Nerd February 29, 2016 at 6:15 pm But supposing we wanted to leave, WITHOUT immediately changing the status quo with respect to other countries as Tim suggests. As far as I can see, we could just copy and paste the existing treaties and change “EU” to “UK” throughout. We could then agree with the relevant countries that that would be the new treaty for the next six months, two years, three years, whatever, while we sorted out what changes we wanted to make. Am I wrong in thinking that, Humphrey? john square February 29, 2016 at 6:23 pm There’s a corollary to the ‘not in EU, but trading at advantageous rates anyway’ view, though- I heard grayling on the radio this morning talking about the trade we could do with the Commonwealth instead- isn’t it the case that nothing is stopping us doing that either/as well? Are both sides being specious? (I ask as i’m learning not to trust much of either sides’ propaganda, but am interested) Dave February 29, 2016 at 6:27 pm CJ> The only problem with that – and it’s not an insurmountable one – is that in many cases the body which would resolve any dispute is an EU body. Dave February 29, 2016 at 6:33 pm John Square> Anyone who talks about preferential trade with the Commonwealth is utterly delusional. To the extent that the ex-colonies care about the UK, they would generally prefer not to have anything further to do with it. Chris Miller February 29, 2016 at 6:39 pm On WATO, Nigel Lawson claimed that all existing trade agreements (outside the EU) would continue unchanged, since they were only negotiated by the EU ‘on behalf’ of its constituent nation states. john square February 29, 2016 at 6:41 pm @dave: not sure about that- the Aussies, Kiwi’s and Springboks(?) I know seem to quite approve of us. And besides, as many have pointed out- few countries will lop off their nose to spite their face where trade is concerned. I was wondering if some bit of EU trade law prevented an EU partner from negotiating a trade deal with a non EU party as a sole partner Dave February 29, 2016 at 6:50 pm John > Australia, NZ, and SA have a combined population of a bit less than Germany’s, and are (on average) much poorer. It’s not significant. You’re quite right that most Commonwealth citizens would rather import whatever’s cheapest, but their governments are far more prone to posturing that makes their citizens poorer. That’s also not very significant, but it does make a mockery of the idea that they’re going to _preferentially_ trade with the UK. “I was wondering if some bit of EU trade law prevented an EU partner from negotiating a trade deal with a non EU party as a sole partner” I’d assume so given that there is fundamental EU law that says you can’t discriminate between one EU nation an another: a trade deal with one is a trade deal with all, if the deal has any validity. All depending on consent to be governed, of course. john square February 29, 2016 at 7:13 pm I’d assume so given that there is fundamental EU law that says you can’t discriminate between one EU nation an another: a trade deal with one is a trade deal with all, if the deal has any validity. All depending on consent to be governed, of course. Ah, but that’d be UK to France. I’m wondering about UK to Aus/Canada etc. Dave February 29, 2016 at 7:20 pm John > I meant that UK-Aus becomes EU-Aus if you’re not allowed to discriminate between EU nations. john square February 29, 2016 at 9:38 pm But if Aus isn’t a signatory, why would the EU affect them? (I know this must feel like you are explaining sommat to the particularly dull child, but i’m genuinely confused) Led125 February 29, 2016 at 10:10 pm David Charter had a good chapter on this in his book ‘Au Revoir, Europe: What if Britain Left the EU?’. Forget about a Commonwealth Free Trade Area; instead the UK must negotiate free trade deals with other countries on a bilateral basis. The EU hasn’t been very good at negotiating such deals and certainly not as good as countries like New Zealand. The UK couldn’t negotiate a trade deal with Australia because much of our consumer law and business regulations are decided at an EU level, and there is a Common External Tariff. CHF February 29, 2016 at 10:43 pm “To the extent that the ex-colonies care about the UK, they would generally prefer not to have anything further to do with it.” I’m sorry, Dave. That’s not true. “You’re quite right that most Commonwealth citizens would rather import whatever’s cheapest” So, we’ll fit right in then, as usual, because we take after each other. CHF February 29, 2016 at 10:48 pm As our host observed in the article, the intelligent strategy would be to go for unilateral free trade. One might suspect that this is unlikely to have been considered, given that this Government seems similar in ability to successive British Governments that sustained intricate exchange controls on sterling from 1939 to 1979, long after the war, making it that much more difficult to trade. Bloke in Malta March 1, 2016 at 12:45 am I’m kinda hoping Britain leaves. Most of the decision makers are in our London office, I’ve already knocked back going there, and I’m a bit isolated here. Most of our decision makers are not British, and I’d say about 80% of our London staff are not British born – so any resistance to recruiting or retaining more foreign staff could work out well on this end. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.