The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Which is it? Make your mind up.

One fits in with the situation I've described to you many, many times.

The other is where I'm apparently making massive assumptions.

I know you're aware that iScotland won't come to pass if there is single market membership. So given we're discussing the merits of the arguments for/against iScotland we must assume that you're going to get the vote.

I'm still saying as I've always said, iScotland is lunacy in the parameters that have been set down by the EU and Sturgeon.

But leaving the EU in a full fat Brexit is economic lunacy also within the parameters Farage, Gove and Johnson were promising a few weeks ago. Yet from what I'm reading in comments sections and in lots of big newspapers, this is exactly what the people of England and Wales want. No freedom of movement no matter what the economic hit.

If the people of Scotland want to follow an act of complete lunacy, then perhaps it's best that it's one of their own choosing, and one in which at least they have some sort of say over. This is exactly what the First Minister is pitching in the event of a hard Brexit.

“I don’t pretend that the option of independence would be straightforward. It would bring its own challenges – as well as opportunities,” said Sturgeon.“But consider this: the UK that we voted to stay part of in 2014 – a UK within the EU – is fundamentally changing. The outlook for the UK is uncertainty, upheaval and unpredictability.
“In these circumstances, it may well be that the option that offers us the greatest certainty, stability and the maximum control over our destiny, is that of independence.”

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/politics/Scotland-set-to-bolt-from-UK-after-Brexit-despite-British-PMs-efforts.html


You're still stuck talking about hard borders and the fact that Scotland/rUK trade would disappear overnight. Seemingly with no negotiations at all either.

TrickyTree83

ash28 wrote: »

If the UK leaves the EU without a deal it will definitely result in tariffs.

If we leave without a deal we aquire "most favoured nation" status with the WTO, and can't impose tariffs or barriers on EU countries without imposing those same tariffs and barriers on every other nation we trade with.

Most favoured nation isn't some special status, it is about discrimination.

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm


The EU, however is a recognised RTA (Regional Trade Agreement) and is able to discriminate on trade access to what are termed "third countries", which the UK will become if it has no deal on exit. And the tariffs are applied automatically.

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/region_e.htm

And



http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/tariff_aspects/customs_tariff/index_en.htm

So in essence, according to WTO regulation we won't be able to apply tariffs to EU imports without applying those same tariffs to all other imports, so it would seem EU imports could continue as before and with out a deal our exports to the EU would carry a tariff.

"There are exceptions for regional free trade areas and customs unions like the EU, but the principle implies that, outside of these, the tariff that applies to the ‘most-favoured nation’ (MFN) must similarly apply to all."

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-leaving-eu-trade/

So the EU's MFN tariff determines the rate at which they can levy tariffs against other nations for the same products. Currently their tariff for cars for example is 10%.

The UK as a WTO member would be free to apply tariffs as it pleases so long as the same tariff applied to all other nations we traded with for those particular products.

So depending on the deals reached:

44% of UK trade will possibly be subjected to tariffs of varying degrees
and also
64% of iScottish trade will possibly be subjected to tariffs of varying degrees

Tariffs, as is generally accepted, hurts trade.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

But leaving the EU in a full fat Brexit is economic lunacy also within the parameters Farage, Gove and Johnson were promising a few weeks ago. Yet from what I'm reading in comments sections and in lots of big newspapers, this is exactly what the people of England and Wales want. No freedom of movement no matter what the economic hit.

If the people of Scotland want to follow an act of complete lunacy, then perhaps it's best that it's one of their own choosing, and one in which at least they have some sort of say over. This is exactly what the First Minister is pitching in the event of a hard Brexit.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/politics/Scotland-set-to-bolt-from-UK-after-Brexit-despite-British-PMs-efforts.html


You're still stuck talking about hard borders and the fact that Scotland/rUK trade would disappear overnight. Seemingly with no negotiations at all either.

why are our trading relations with USA, Australia, NZ, South Korea, Japan etc a complete lunacy?

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

why are our trading relations with USA, Australia, NZ, South Korea, Japan etc a complete lunacy?

Because the shipping costs and timescales will be unacceptable for a lot of trades. Those countries are all half way round the world so you'd either need to send stuff surface mail (hugely time consuming) or airmail (hugely expensive), when it's trivial within Europe (since you can do it by land).

For example, you've got a dozen pallets of widgets in a factory in Birmingham, you've got 2 customers, one in Munich and one in Sydney. You can take about 30,000kg in a single truck direct from Birmingham->Munich in a couple of days. The same container would need to get trucked to a dock in the UK, then loaded onto a container ship which then has to circumnavigate the world, before being unloaded and shipped to the customer. Someone has to pay the difference as well as be happy with the fact it's taken ~4 weeks longer.

That's not even factoring in the time zones; working with companies a couple of hours out isn't too bad, working with companies that are 5+ hours out makes all meetings harder.

So to trade with the places you've mentioned, you're looking at a lot more time, work and expense, versus the same amount of trade in the EU, and you still struggle to be competitive. To keep our economy where it is, we'd need to get at least 10% more trade from those companies than we lose from the EU, just to cover the overheads.

Trading with our neighbours is the easiest and most efficient way to go.

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

Because the shipping costs and timescales will be unacceptable for a lot of trades. Those countries are all half way round the world so you'd either need to send stuff surface mail (hugely time consuming) or airmail (hugely expensive), when it's trivial within Europe (since you can do it by land).

For example, you've got a dozen pallets of widgets in a factory in Birmingham, you've got 2 customers, one in Munich and one in Sydney. You can take about 30,000kg in a single truck direct from Birmingham->Munich in a couple of days. The same container would need to get trucked to a dock in the UK, then loaded onto a container ship which then has to circumnavigate the world, before being unloaded and shipped to the customer. Someone has to pay the difference as well as be happy with the fact it's taken ~4 weeks longer.

That's not even factoring in the time zones; working with companies a couple of hours out isn't too bad, working with companies that are 5+ hours out makes all meetings harder.

So to trade with the places you've mentioned, you're looking at a lot more time, work and expense, versus the same amount of trade in the EU, and you still struggle to be competitive. To keep our economy where it is, we'd need to get at least 10% more trade from those companies than we lose from the EU, just to cover the overheads.

Trading with our neighbours is the easiest and most efficient way to go.

At risk of getting massively off the topic of Scotland, supply chain logistics does address this. If you have a regular shipment to maintain stock levels based on demand it doesn't matter much if it's coming from New Zealand or Ireland, if the price is right.

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

Because the shipping costs and timescales will be unacceptable for a lot of trades. Those countries are all half way round the world so you'd either need to send stuff surface mail (hugely time consuming) or airmail (hugely expensive), when it's trivial within Europe (since you can do it by land).

For example, you've got a dozen pallets of widgets in a factory in Birmingham, you've got 2 customers, one in Munich and one in Sydney. You can take about 30,000kg in a single truck direct from Birmingham->Munich in a couple of days. The same container would need to get trucked to a dock in the UK, then loaded onto a container ship which then has to circumnavigate the world, before being unloaded and shipped to the customer. Someone has to pay the difference as well as be happy with the fact it's taken ~4 weeks longer.

That's not even factoring in the time zones; working with companies a couple of hours out isn't too bad, working with companies that are 5+ hours out makes all meetings harder.

So to trade with the places you've mentioned, you're looking at a lot more time, work and expense, versus the same amount of trade in the EU, and you still struggle to be competitive. To keep our economy where it is, we'd need to get at least 10% more trade from those companies than we lose from the EU, just to cover the overheads.

Trading with our neighbours is the easiest and most efficient way to go.

I guess that Japan, S Korea, Malasia, USA, Canada, Australia, NZ etc do virtually no business in Europe then?

nkomp18

CLAPTON wrote: »

I guess that Japan, S Korea, Malasia, USA, Canada, Australia, NZ etc do virtually no business in Europe then?

They do a lot of trading with the EU, through agreements that took decades to forge and by using long shipping routes with enormous container ships to various european ports.

We, of course, hope that they will be cooperative in creating new trade agreements with the UK within a strict non negotiable 2 year time frame and that they are happy to send a massive container ship to Rotterdam and then a smaller boat to Portsmouth.

Thrugelmir

Herzlos wrote: »

Because the shipping costs and timescales will be unacceptable for a lot of trades. Those countries are all half way round the world so you'd either need to send stuff surface mail (hugely time consuming) or airmail (hugely expensive), when it's trivial within Europe (since you can do it by land).

Nothing efficient transporting by road. Largest container ships can transport 19,000 at a time. Still in it's infancy. London Gateway will eventually handle 3.5 million containers a year. Having direct rail connection will remove the necessity of HGV's doing long haul runs. New Panama Canal also being built. The world is getting smaller. No longer have to queue at Dover because the French get bloody minded.

CLAPTON

nkomp18 wrote: »

They do a lot of trading with the EU, through agreements that took decades to forge and by using long shipping routes with enormous container ships to various european ports.

We, of course, hope that they will be cooperative in creating new trade agreements with the UK within a strict non negotiable 2 year time frame and that they are happy to send a massive container ship to Rotterdam and then a smaller boat to Portsmouth.

which trade agrrements are these?

I even understand that German sells cars to China, India, Aus, USA, Canada

ash28

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

"There are exceptions for regional free trade areas and customs unions like the EU, but the principle implies that, outside of these, the tariff that applies to the ‘most-favoured nation’ (MFN) must similarly apply to all."

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-leaving-eu-trade/

So the EU's MFN tariff determines the rate at which they can levy tariffs against other nations for the same products. Currently their tariff for cars for example is 10%.

The UK as a WTO member would be free to apply tariffs as it pleases so long as the same tariff applied to all other nations we traded with for those particular products.

So depending on the deals reached:

44% of UK trade will possibly be subjected to tariffs of varying degrees
and also
64% of iScottish trade will possibly be subjected to tariffs of varying degrees

Tariffs, as is generally accepted, hurts trade.

My point really was that EU tariffs to third countries are automatically applied as they are built into the EU Aquis, without a deal of some sort they are a given. The UK, on the other hand will be unlikely to place any significant barriers to trade with the EU as it would have to impose those same barriers to all of its trading partners.

Some argue that the cost of failure in reaching agreement with EU would be quite small....the imposition of the EU's external tariff to our exports, which would make them bit more expensive and would probably reduce our exports to the EU and increase our trade deficit a little.

Tariffs are only half of the story, the other half are the non-tariff barriers....in the EU market these are virtually non existent. If we leave without a deal then some will re-emerge as existing recognition of standards disappear. Goods that went through on a nod to the documentation may be physically inspected and even tested.

You have to hope that our politicians will be able to negotiate a deal within 2 years of Article 50 being invoked. If they bxlls it up it could be a disaster.

For us and Scotland.