If we vote for Brexit what happens

michaels

DavidJonas wrote: »

I don't think you understand. Tariffs are a tax. Just like a customs duty. The tariffs apply to countries exporting products to the EU. If we leave the EU, notwithstanding a trade deal that circumvents them, they will apply to UK exporters.

A dairy farmer wishing to sell a pint of milk for, let us say, £1 a gallon, currently gets £1 for each gallon. From outside the EU he would have to give 30% of that to the EU. Which leaves him with 70p. Quite a drop.

Taxes increase prices.

Our EU contributions (net of the cash that gets dolloped onto Wales, Northern Ireland etc) are trivial compared to the benefits of the single market.

I don't think you understand. The EU tariffs on dairy imports are there to prevent foreign producers outside the EU with a lower cost of production being able to undercut EU dairy farmers. Outside the EU the UK could happily import milk and cheese from Canada, the US and Australia at the going international rate without applying the EU 30% tariff which would see price falls for consumers (at the expense of farmers). You may think protecting 0.5% of the population who are farmers is worth everyone else paying 10-15% more per week on their food but others would argue that this is extremely regressive.

DavidJonas

angrypirate wrote: »

And the BBC? No, they only receive funding from the EU. Completely honest and impartial.

Is this the couple of million they accepted over 3 years to improve their research and development and high def filming?

The BBC budget for 2013/14 alone was £5bn.

What sort of person believes the BBC (Annual Budget £5bn or five thousand million pounds) has been successfully subverted by small payments over 3 years that amount in total to roughly 2 million pounds.

Add up your own income for the last 3 years. Then divide it by appx 7000. Does that seem like a lot of money to you?

That is the significance of the funding you are talking about.

Laughable. Barrel scraping.

CLAPTON

DavidJonas wrote: »

I don't think you understand. Tariffs are a tax. Just like a customs duty. The tariffs apply to countries exporting products to the EU. If we leave the EU, notwithstanding a trade deal that circumvents them, they will apply to UK exporters.

A dairy farmer wishing to sell a pint of milk for, let us say, £1 a gallon, currently gets £1 for each gallon. From outside the EU he would have to give 30% of that to the EU. Which leaves him with 70p. Quite a drop.

Taxes increase prices.

Our EU contributions (net of the cash that gets dolloped onto Wales, Northern Ireland etc) are trivial compared to the benefits of the single market.

Tariffs are indeed a tax on the people of the importing country.
For undifferentiated 'commodity' products then the exporter may have to take the hit but that may not be the case for high tech unique products.
Overall the increase in price will hit the importing country (i.e the people of the EU).
The exporting country will suffer lower sales.

However exactly the same argument apply to exporters from the EU who will suffer from tariffs which will reduce their sales reduced, higher unemployment and lower growth etc.


So potential bad news for both parties to the trade: obviously completely avoidable by sensible negotiations.

DavidJonas

michaels wrote: »

I don't think you understand. The EU tariffs on dairy imports are there to prevent foreign producers outside the EU with a lower cost of production being able to undercut EU dairy farmers. Outside the EU the UK could happily import milk and cheese from Canada, the US and Australia at the going international rate without applying the EU 30% tariff which would see price falls for consumers (at the expense of farmers). You may think protecting 0.5% of the population who are farmers is worth everyone else paying 10-15% more per week on their food but others would argue that this is extremely regressive.

But the UK exports milk. Cheese and butter too.

http://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/market-information/processing-trade/imports-exports/uk-dairy-exports/

We produce 14,393 million litres of milk a year.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/421388/Monthly_Notice_March_2015.pdf

That is 225 litres a year for every man, woman and child in the country. What is that? A pint a day every day for everybody? Babies too. Maybe you drink that much milk. I don't.

Canada, eh?

Canada has a 241% tariff on imported Milk above quota. Obviously, the UK currently has no agreed quota.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/tariffs-are-the-hidden-hand-behind-us-canada-price-gap/article8412498/

So we are going to import Canadian milk and charge them a 0% tariff, but our own milk exports to Canada are going to suffer a 241% tariff?

That doesn't seem very fair.

Canadian butter tariffs by contrast are 299%. Cheese is merely 246%.

Why would we offer 0% tariffs to Canadian (Or US, or Australian) dairy imports? Just so we can wreck our dairy industry while they aggressively protect theirs? As a straw poll, does anybody else want this?

You seem to be assuming that free trade is the default position in the world. It is not.

angrypirate

setmefree2 wrote: »

No 1992....

Ah, you are talking about their fall from their 1989 peak? And you are saying this was caused because 3 years later we were to get an exemption from joining the Euro (1992 Maastricht treaty)? Interesting hypothesis......

DavidJonas

CLAPTON wrote: »

So potential bad news for both parties to the trade: obviously completely avoidable by sensible negotiations.

The EU does not want free trade with the world. It doesn't have free trade with the world. It is a group of rather socialist countries that have erected a protectionist bloc around themselves to keep foreign trade out. They open up on preferential terms only.

Lots of things make sense to us. But they don't necessarily make sense to the French or the Spanish (et al). The French initially blackballed us from joining the EU, remember? How sensible was that?

If the EU wanted free trade with the world it would be pursuing it. It isn't.

Free trade would make EU countries wealthier, yes. But you are talking about countries, like France, that have a 35 hour working week. They don't necessarily want wealthier. Or competition. They tolerate high unemployment and low growth so as to preserve their precious social model, blocking roads with tractors as needed.

And these are the sensible, trade loving people you think will necessarily negotiate free trade agreements with us ! The French (et al) haven't done what was in their own economic interests for decades. Why start now? And with us !

CLAPTON

DavidJonas wrote: »

But the UK exports milk. Cheese and butter too.

http://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/market-information/processing-trade/imports-exports/uk-dairy-exports/

We produce 14,393 million litres of milk a year.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/421388/Monthly_Notice_March_2015.pdf

That is 225 litres a year for every man, woman and child in the country. What is that? A pint a day every day for everybody? Babies too. Maybe you drink that much milk. I don't.

Canada, eh?

Canada has a 241% tariff on imported Milk above quota. Obviously, the UK currently has no agreed quota.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/tariffs-are-the-hidden-hand-behind-us-canada-price-gap/article8412498/

So we are going to import Canadian milk and charge them a 0% tariff, but our own milk exports to Canada are going to suffer a 241% tariff?

That doesn't seem very fair.

Canadian butter tariffs by contrast are 299%. Cheese is merely 246%.

Why would we offer 0% tariffs to Canadian (Or US, or Australian) dairy imports? Just so we can wreck our dairy industry while they aggressively protect theirs? As a straw poll, does anybody else want this?

You seem to be assuming that free trade is the default position in the world. It is not.

we produce milk because the EU rules subsidise it: a distortion of trade and reduce the wealth of the people of the EU.

CLAPTON

DavidJonas wrote: »

The EU does not want free trade with the world. It doesn't have free trade with the world. It is a group of rather socialist countries that have erected a protectionist bloc around themselves to keep foreign trade out. They open up on preferential terms only.

Lots of things make sense to us. But they don't necessarily make sense to the French or the Spanish (et al). The French initially blackballed us from joining the EU, remember? How sensible was that?

If the EU wanted free trade with the world it would be pursuing it. It isn't.

Free trade would make EU countries wealthier, yes. But you are talking about countries, like France, that have a 35 hour working week. They don't necessarily want wealthier. Or competition. They tolerate high unemployment and low growth so as to preserve their precious social model, blocking roads with tractors as needed.

And these are the sensible, trade loving people you think will necessarily negotiate free trade agreements with us ! The French (et al) haven't done what was in their own economic interests for decades. Why start now? And with us !

I don't know the answer: one thing to refuse to see an opportunity but another to have to make people redundant in the full glare of publicity.

anyway it simply reinforces the view that we will quickly be better off once we leave.

angrypirate

DavidJonas wrote: »

Is this the couple of million they accepted over 3 years to improve their research and development and high def filming?

The BBC budget for 2013/14 alone was £5bn.

What sort of person believes the BBC (Annual Budget £5bn or five thousand million pounds) has been successfully subverted by small payments over 3 years that amount in total to roughly 2 million pounds.

Add up your own income for the last 3 years. Then divide it by appx 7000. Does that seem like a lot of money to you?

That is the significance of the funding you are talking about.

Laughable. Barrel scraping.

Granted it is small fish in comparison with their operating budget. However, this blog suggests that the BBC have received over 20million over the years. The more disturbing thing from me though is the BBCs reluctance to reveal the truth about the actual total figure they receive from the EU.
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84760

Filo25

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't know the answer: one thing to refuse to see an opportunity but another to have to make people redundant in the full glare of publicity.

anyway it simply reinforces the view that we will quickly be better off once we leave.

You seem to have the belief though that we will rapidly be able to negotiate trade deals when we leave the EU.

I can't think of too many trade deals recently which have been quickly negotiated, TTIP has been dragging on for a few years already with no end in sight.

Oddly enough both sides in trade deals tend to drag it out in the hope of getting what they see as the best possible deal for their country, I would think the only way you can easily negotiate them quickly is to give the other side better terms.

Because let's be honest here post EU exit, locked out of the major trading blocks, we are likely to be the ones who are rather more keen to get quick deals done than our negotiating counterparties are.