World Trade Organisation Rules

Rinoa

wotsthat wrote: »

We decided to pool sovereignty with other nations and adopt a common approach in certain areas. It's not lack of control - it's what we agreed to do as part of our democratic process.

Pooled sovereignty by definition means you are not in control of your laws anymore.

It's a wonderful concept but countries are different. Some countries are poorer than others, some agricultural based others manufacturing. Some have industries others don't have. Some have large populations others less than 5m.

It's crazy to think that every country needs the exact same laws and regulations. Curiously, since we voted to leave, more and more countries are coming to the same conclusion.

vivatifosi

I was listening to a post brexit debate on R4 yesterday. Had an interesting selection of speakers, including someone from Switzerland, who talked about their country's different trade deals, and how it had taken a long time to reach that (I think they said 48 years).

The panel was also asked about the WTO as a fallback. One made the point that the WTO largely represents the world as it was in the 1980s in terms of legislation and was not good at accounting for the changes since or new industries.

wotsthat

Jason74 wrote: »

Yep. And in return for this control (which as you say, will probably be about neutral in terms of overall outcome) we've surrendered all the trade and economic advantages that go with being in the EU.

Not our smartest move imho, but 52% of voters disagree with me on that. Hopefully one of two things will happen. Either something will happen during the leave process that causes our decision to be reversed. Or, time proves me (and probably you) wrong and the 52% right. Personally, I'm not too hopeful on either count

I hope we now leave the EU. The decision has been made and that's that. I wouldn't support a second referendum asking the same question - I'd still vote remain but would be uncomfortable if we went down that route. I can see another referendum where we get to choose a future approach to the EU maybe.

I'm actually quite optimistic things will be OK. By virtue of better educations it's actually the remainers that will get to shape and influence what the post EU UK looks like.

Also, the leave campaign didn't have a plan which looks increasingly more stupid by the day because it now means there's no democratic mandate for actions other than leaving the EU.

wotsthat

Rinoa wrote: »

Pooled sovereignty by definition means you are not in control of your laws anymore.

It's a wonderful concept but countries are different. Some countries are poorer than others, some agricultural based others manufacturing. Some have industries others don't have. Some have large populations others less than 5m.

We are in control. We just delegated it to someone else. I don't find it a difficult concept - any club or association works in the same way.

I understand your second point and it may prove to be the case that decisions made in the UK are more appropriate and better for the peoples of the UK.

Currently decisions made where we share sovereignty might be better for the UK compared to, say, Germany and vice versa but I liked the idea of being part of something bigger where decisions are intended to be for the best of the whole of Europe.

Rinoa wrote: »

It's crazy to think that every country needs the exact same laws and regulations. Curiously, since we voted to leave, more and more countries are coming to the same conclusion.

Maybe it'll come to pass that the EU project comes to an end and we have 28 very close neighbours all making decisions considering only the interests of the peoples living in their borders.

Sounds like s step backwards to me but time will tell.

wotsthat

vivatifosi wrote: »

The panel was also asked about the WTO as a fallback. One made the point that the WTO largely represents the world as it was in the 1980s in terms of legislation and was not good at accounting for the changes since or new industries.

I can't see how trade would do anything but plummet with the EU if we went down the WTO route. It includes many barriers to trade (compared to the free trade we have now) and is the least good option available to UK or EU.

There would need to be a catastrophic failure of negotiations for it to be considered an option.

Jason74

wotsthat wrote: »

I hope we now leave the EU. The decision has been made and that's that. I wouldn't support a second referendum asking the same question - I'd still vote remain but would be uncomfortable if we went down that route. I can see another referendum where we get to choose a future approach to the EU maybe.

I'm actually quite optimistic things will be OK. By virtue of better educations it's actually the remainers that will get to shape and influence what the post EU UK looks like.

Also, the leave campaign didn't have a plan which looks increasingly more stupid by the day because it now means there's no democratic mandate for actions other than leaving the EU.

At this stage, I agree with you. Going back and asking the same question is all wrong on a whole host of levels. The process of leaving the EU must now commence. However, we have no idea what the final leave position looks like, and I don't think that it's appropriate to effectively giving a "blank cheque" to get out of the EU at any cost is the way forward.

Given the lack of a plan, the ideal is imho to hammer out what leave actually looks like, and then (if the rest of the EU allows us to which is of course not certain) bring that back to the country with a choice of taking the leave deal or remaining in the EU. That way, something resembling an informed choice is being made. I don't see how anything else can be democratic given both the lack of a leave plan pre referendum, and the near certainty that the kind of deal that many leave voters would like will not be possible.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

We are in control. We just delegated it to someone else. I don't find it a difficult concept - any club or association works in the same way.

No organisation works in that way.
If the task is being carried out incorrectly then the delegated authority is rescinded.
Within the EU there is no mechanism other than all or nothing.

I understand your second point and it may prove to be the case that decisions made in the UK are more appropriate and better for the peoples of the UK.

Currently decisions made where we share sovereignty might be better for the UK compared to, say, Germany and vice versa but I liked the idea of being part of something bigger where decisions are intended to be for the best of the whole of Europe.

I'm a little unsure how the EU decisions are in the best interest of Greece or indeed of Spain, Italy Portugal with their very high unemployment rates and economic stagnation.

Maybe it'll come to pass that the EU project comes to an end and we have 28 very close neighbours all making decisions considering only the interests of the peoples living in their borders.

Sounds like s step backwards to me but time will tell.

Clearly there is a divide both internally and internationally between the 'planners' that demand a huge bureaucratic central plan and those that believe that 'little' people making little decisions arrive at a better world.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

No organisation works in that way.
If the task is being carried out incorrectly then the delegated authority is rescinded.
Within the EU there is no mechanism other than all or nothing.

I'm a little unsure how the EU decisions are in the best interest of Greece or indeed of Spain, Italy Portugal with their very high unemployment rates and economic stagnation.

Clearly there is a divide both internally and internationally between the 'planners' that demand a huge bureaucratic central plan and those that believe that 'little' people making little decisions arrive at a better world.

You're coming at this following 40 years of disengagement. If you don't like the way your local rugby club is run then you engage, join the committee and generally try to influence the way it's run in a way you see fit. You might decide to walk away instead because you think it's too difficult and because big Geoff always gets his own way anyway.

In your rugby club some members will be doing OK, some badly and some well. Maybe some of that is down to decisions made by the club committee or maybe they're somewhat self-inflicted and little, if anything, to do with the club.

A balance is needed between central planning and local decision making. The size of government is also important - are too many decisions being made on behalf of individuals when they should just be outside the scope of government full stop?

The EU, imperfect as it is, allows decisions to be made that consider the impact across 28 nations via a democratic process. 28 close neighbours all making every decision purely for their own best interests, I believe, will lead to more rather than less negative outcomes.

Conrad

Singapore has done more valuable trade deals than the crumbling EU, anyone thinking we can radically improve the EU from within is gonna have a very profound realisation

The future is about being nimble, responsive and a safe haven

I just listened to Hilary Clintons latest long speech. Wow, America is going to see massive decrease in FDI under her or Trump. She talked about many uncompetitive new measures she will bring in such as a steep rise in corporation tax

Wake up guys the UK is an u rivalled investment choice

Rinoa

wotsthat wrote: »

I can't see how trade would do anything but plummet with the EU if we went down the WTO route. It includes many barriers to trade (compared to the free trade we have now) and is the least good option available to UK or EU.

There would need to be a catastrophic failure of negotiations for it to be considered an option.

If 56% of our exports are currently outside the EU, outside the single market and with tariff barriers to overcome, I don't believe we should be overly concerned. The US sells £200Bn to the EU annually on WTO terms.