Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Beechey]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

So which other bit of that departments budget is suffering?

Probably from the treasury reserves to be honest.

Edited 11 April 2018 by Beechey

[Guest MattP]

20 minutes ago, toddybad said:

You can't just go round lowering tariffs willy nilly. You need to look into this.

Why not? 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Probably from the treasury reserves to be honest.

So it hasn't already been put into a departmental budget?

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Sure I'll bite: tell me why. Why can't a government lower tariffs if it wants to? What international mechanism stops it from doing so?

 

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Why not? 

It's not that we can't lower them at all - we can - but we have to provide the wto with schedules with are applicable I believe. We can't just do what we want with our tariffs when we want. We can't offer sweetener deals here or poor deals there. There are rules managed by the wto.

 

The head of the wto was on the radio the other week making it clear that we won't be able to negotiate deals that are as good as the EU's because they are in a much stronger bargaining position when they negotiate.  

[Beechey]

21 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

It's not that we can't lower them at all - we can - but we have to provide the wto with schedules with are applicable I believe. We can't just do what we want with our tariffs when we want. We can't offer sweetener deals here or poor deals there. There are rules managed by the wto.

 

The head of the wto was on the radio the other week making it clear that we won't be able to negotiate deals that are as good as the EU's because they are in a much stronger bargaining position when they negotiate.  

That wasn't even close to the argument I was making though was it? My argument was not that we offer some shady, tariff free access to our markets in return for better deals for our producers, it was that we could simply lower tariffs from vital goods that we don't produce (or produce enough of, leading to greater price to the consumer) ourselves, making the import market more competitive. There's no reason whatsoever that this couldn't happen. Obviously the EU holds greater bargaining power than us in total. But in regards to what we offer, there's three nations in the world that aren't part of the EU which would hold greater bargaining power than us on simply economic scale: the US, China and Japan.

 

Two of those are strategic partners, so I'd suggest we'll almost certainly be getting an agreement with them eventually, which is more than can be said for the EU, whose agreement with the US (our largest single nation export market) is all but dead.

Edited 11 April 2018 by Beechey

[DJ Barry Hammond]

@Beechey  this is relevant to your point I believe 

 

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

 

1. Most-favoured-nation (MFN): treating other people equally  Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.

 

This principle is known as most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment (see box). It is so important that it is the first article of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which governs trade in goods. MFN is also a priority in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) (Article 2) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Article 4), although in each agreement the principle is handled slightly differently. Together, those three agreements cover all three main areas of trade handled by the WTO.

 

Some exceptions are allowed. For example, countries can set up a free trade agreement that applies only to goods traded within the group —   discriminating against goods from outside. Or they can give developing countries special access to their markets. Or a country can raise barriers against products that are considered to be traded unfairly from specific countries. And in services, countries are allowed, in limited circumstances, to discriminate. But the agreements only permit these exceptions under strict conditions. In general, MFN means that every time a country lowers a trade barrier or opens up a market, it has to do so for the same goods or services from all its trading partners — whether rich or poor, weak or strong.

Edited 11 April 2018 by DJ Barry Hammond

[Beechey]

7 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

@Beechey  this is relevant to your point I believe 

 

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

 

1. Most-favoured-nation (MFN): treating other people equally  Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.

 

This principle is known as most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment (see box). It is so important that it is the first article of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which governs trade in goods. MFN is also a priority in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) (Article 2) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Article 4), although in each agreement the principle is handled slightly differently. Together, those three agreements cover all three main areas of trade handled by the WTO.

 

Some exceptions are allowed. For example, countries can set up a free trade agreement that applies only to goods traded within the group —   discriminating against goods from outside. Or they can give developing countries special access to their markets. Or a country can raise barriers against products that are considered to be traded unfairly from specific countries. And in services, countries are allowed, in limited circumstances, to discriminate. But the agreements only permit these exceptions under strict conditions. In general, MFN means that every time a country lowers a trade barrier or opens up a market, it has to do so for the same goods or services from all its trading partners — whether rich or poor, weak or strong.

This is effectively the argument I was making (although wasn't aware of the MNF rule, but the argument holds, regardless). It's more like hyper free-markets. For whatever we do not produce enough of ourselves, we can lower tariff barriers for in order to make the price of those items in the UK lower. Part of the problem I have with the EU's customs union is its barriers to trade from outside, instead opting to protect industries within its borders even if they're woefully expensive. It has the downside of putting our businesses at a disadvantage because of production costs abroad, but I'd argue the cost to the consumer right now almost certainly costs more than the jobs for say, basic clothes production, or fruit growing offer. I'm very open minded though. If documentation was produced that went against my idea then I'd be more than happy to rethink my opinion.

Edited 11 April 2018 by Beechey

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Beechey said:

This is effectively the argument I was making (although wasn't aware of the MNF rule, but the argument holds, regardless). It's more like hyper free-markets. For whatever we do not produce enough of ourselves, we can lower tariff barriers for in order to make the price of those items in the UK lower. Part of the problem I have with the EU's customs union is its barriers to trade from outside, instead opting to protect industries within its borders even if they're woefully expensive. It has the downside of putting our businesses at a disadvantage because of production costs abroad, but I'd argue the cost to the consumer right now almost certainly costs more than the jobs for say, basic clothes production, or fruit growing offer.

Again, you're talking like you have some secret knowledge the experts don't have and actually we'll be better off (despite denying ever having done this). You don't. We won't. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

I sense you’re idea is too simplistic. Lower tariffs = cheaper products for consumers should not be considered a given.

 

Equally, just because we don’t produce something now, it doesn’t mean we can’t in the future.

 

Low tariff importing on these things would restrict the opportunities for a home grown business to take advantage of the supply demand situation to the benefit of this economy. Importing invariably means consumers money is flowing out of the country to the benefit of people elsewhere. 

[Beechey]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Again, you're talking like you have some secret knowledge the experts don't have and actually we'll be better off (despite denying ever having done this). You don't. We won't. 

The "experts" would probably agree that cheaper goods from outside he Customs Union would be cheaper for the UK consumer than more expensive goods from inside the Customs Union, no? Not difficult to comprehend, really.

 

 

And oh, I have?

 

... 

 

 

35 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

It's not that we can't lower them at all - we can - but we have to provide the wto with schedules with are applicable I believe. We can't just do what we want with our tariffs when we want. We can't offer sweetener deals here or poor deals there. There are rules managed by the wto.

 

The head of the wto was on the radio the other week making it clear that we won't be able to negotiate deals that are as good as the EU's because they are in a much stronger bargaining position when they negotiate.  

 

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

Every country in the world is begging for a trade deal with the EU. It gets the terms it wants.

 

Meanwhile, India have said they want better freedoms of movement, Australia and the us want us to reduce regulations. We will need to bend over backwards to get free trade and we'll still have third parties running the rule over whether we are adhering to agreements.

 

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

I really don't know why the Brexiters let themselves get involved in trade arguments.

 

If you care about free trade all of the experts agree that Brexit is a nonsense. There's nothing to argue about. 

 

If you didn't like freedom of movement, EU beaurocracy etc that's fine. I don't agree but that's fine. Just say so and leave it there.

 

To start banging on about how were gong to confound all the experts (including the wto itself) is simply intellectually disingenuous.

 

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

You can't just go round lowering tariffs willy nilly. You need to look into this.

 

4 hours ago, toddybad said:

We'll be signing trade deals from a position of weakness and desperation. If we're lucky we'll have a say.

 

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

You can't just go round lowering tariffs willy nilly. You need to look into this.

 

49 minutes ago, MattP said:

Why not? 

 

38 minutes ago, toddybad said:

It's not that we can't lower them at all - we can 

WTF is this Toddy? 

[Beechey]

13 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

I sense you’re idea is too simplistic. Lower tariffs = cheaper products for consumers should not be considered a given.

 

Equally, just because we don’t produce something now, it doesn’t mean we can’t in the future.

 

Low tariff importing on these things would restrict the opportunities for a home grown business to take advantage of the supply demand situation to the benefit of this economy. Importing invariably means consumers money is flowing out of the country to the benefit of people elsewhere. 

You're right I think for goods that we could ever have a chance in competing in the market for, but there's a difference between something not being produced because we don't have the expertise and because it not being cost-effective to produce here. Easy to produce clothing is an example, the reason it's mostly produced in poorer Asian countries is because it's not cost effective here at all, but the EU puts customs tariffs on those products from many countries to protect EU industries in some member states. There are tariffs of 5.60% - 12% on various (I only checked two listed, some could be higher, some lower of course) clothing items from Bangladesh or Vietnam from the Customs Union (from literally a one minute search on the European Commission website).

Edited 11 April 2018 by Beechey

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

But clothing can be bought for hardly nothing, made from those very countries and sold in Primark... and what was one of Britain’s leading industries long back? Textiles! 

 

Not a great example. 

 

[Beechey]

8 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

But clothing can be bought for hardly nothing, made from those very countries and sold in Primark... and what was one of Britain’s leading industries long back? Textiles! 

 

Not a great example. 

 

You're mad if you think UK business could realistically compete (with a minimum wage of almost £8 per hour) with Vietnam, whose minimum wage is £0.52 per hour, or Bangladeshi workers, who are paid an average of £27 per month. It's not a particularly good starting point for an industry that is effectively already dead here. "It's already somewhat cheap" is not a good argument to refuse to make it as cheap as possible. The free market in instances like this does kill some industries, but it ultimately helps the consumer the most.

Edited 11 April 2018 by Beechey

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

 

WTF is this Toddy? 

Surely you're just playing stupid?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Beechey said:

You're mad if you think UK business could realistically compete (with a minimum wage of almost £8) with Vietnam, whose minimum wage is £0.52 per hour. It's not a particularly good starting point.

"It's already somewhat cheap" is not a good argument to refuse to make it as cheap as possible.

So you'd like to procure everything overseas at minimum cost? You wouldn't like to see Britain reskill and learn to manufacture again? What happens to innovindil when you remove tariffs and we procure the goods his company makes from Sri Lanka? Would you agree this will have an effect on employment in the UK? Isn't that what remain said?

[Beechey]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

So you'd like to procure everything overseas at minimum cost? You wouldn't like to see Britain reskill and learn to manufacture again? What happens to innovindil when you remove tariffs and we procure the goods his company makes from Sri Lanka? Would you agree this will have an effect on employment in the UK? Isn't that what remain said?

Surely you're just playing stupid?

Sorry I couldn't resist.

 

 

Re-skilling to produce garments in trying to compete internationally with countries who pay an average of around 5% per hour that people in this country are paid? I'd agree about re-skilling to actually do high-skill manufacturing though, high-skill manufacturing is something I wish we'd tried to pivot towards a long time ago, but it's a herculean effort for government to invest when the effects probably wouldn't take place until after a 5 year term of Parliament.

Edited 11 April 2018 by Beechey

[Rogstanley]

23 minutes ago, Beechey said:

You're mad if you think UK business could realistically compete (with a minimum wage of almost £8 per hour) with Vietnam, whose minimum wage is £0.52 per hour, or Bangladeshi workers, who are paid an average of £27 per month. It's not a particularly good starting point for an industry that is effectively already dead here. "It's already somewhat cheap" is not a good argument to refuse to make it as cheap as possible. The free market in instances like this does kill some industries, but it ultimately helps the consumer the most.

From where is the government going to recover the lost tax revenue if the tariff is reduced to zero?

[Beechey]

10 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

From where is the government going to recover the lost tax revenue if the tariff is reduced to zero?

Who said anything about it being reduced to 0? Customs duties brings 0.4% of government revenue, reducing some goods tariffs won't greatly affect anything.

Edited 11 April 2018 by Beechey

[Rogstanley]

8 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Who said anything about it being reduced to 0? Customs duties brings 0.4% of government revenue, reducing some goods tariffs won't greatly affect anything.

Ok well from where is the government going to recover the lost tax revenue if the tariff is reduced at all? Unless you're willing to just add the loss the debt, in which case why not just reduce income tax and make everyone better off instead of giving an arbitrary advantage to people who buy more clothes, then the lost tax will have to come from somewhere else.

 

Now I've not followed the last few pages very closely, but it seemed to me that you were arguing that removing tariffs is a positive of brexit because it could result in lower prices for the consumer, and the example you gave was clothes from Vietnam. It's correct that removing tariffs from clothes imports would make buying clothes a little cheaper (we'll just ignore the fact that the weakening of the pound has already completely wiped out that benefit), but if the government is going to want that money back from somewhere else then it's just robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't it. There's no real benefit in it at all.

[Beechey]

12 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Ok well from where is the government going to recover the lost tax revenue if the tariff is reduced at all? Unless you're willing to just add the loss the debt, in which case why not just reduce income tax and make everyone better off instead of giving an arbitrary advantage to people who buy more clothes, then the lost tax will have to come from somewhere else.

 

Now I've not followed the last few pages very closely, but it seemed to me that you were arguing that removing tariffs is a positive of brexit because it could result in lower prices for the consumer, and the example you gave was clothes from Vietnam. It's correct that removing tariffs from clothes imports would make buying clothes a little cheaper (we'll just ignore the fact that the weakening of the pound has already completely wiped out that benefit), but if the government is going to want that money back from somewhere else then it's just robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't it. There's no real benefit in it at all.

Growth in the economy would almost certainly cover any decrease. The Duties in total bring in just over £3bn, and whilst I don't pretend to know for sure what industries bring the most in, I'd bet my hat (I don't own one though) on a significant proportion of it being tech products, not clothing. Even at minimal growth (say 0.3% in one quarter) would increase the size of our economy by almost £6bn, the government revenue is around 40% of GDP, so that alone would be an extra £2.4bn or so in a single quarter of growth for the treasury to invest (provided it all comes from industries that produce revenue for the Exchequer of course). But of course, really, clothing will make up such a small amount of funding for the government that we shouldn't pretend that the treasury just couldn't absorb it by borrowing or paying for it from their reserves.

 

You should know the Pound is literally bang on where it was with both the Bangladeshi Taka and Vietnamese Dong before the referendum, it's recovered entirely (and in both cases actually made an improvement) - just to dispel that myth. The Pound is not as shit as you seem to think.

Edited 11 April 2018 by Beechey

[Rogstanley]

13 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Growth in the economy would almost certainly cover any decrease. The Duties in total bring in just over £3bn, and whilst I don't pretend to know for sure what industries bring the most in, I'd bet my hat (I don't own one though) on a significant proportion of it being tech products, not clothing. Even at minimal growth (say 0.3% in one quarter) would increase the size of our economy by almost £6bn, the government revenue is around 40% of GDP, so that alone would be an extra £2.4bn or so in a single quarter of growth for the treasury to invest (provided it all comes from industries that produce revenue for the Exchequer of course). But of course, really, clothing will make up such a small amount of funding for the government that we shouldn't pretend that the treasury just couldn't absorb it by borrowing or paying for it from their reserves.

 

You should know the Pound is literally bang on where it was with both the Bangladeshi Taka and Vietnamese Dong before the referendum, it's recovered entirely (and in both cases actually made an improvement) - just to dispel that myth. The Pound is not as shit as you seem to think.

 

So you're saying the removal or reduction of a tariff is guaranteed to generate economic growth that itself generates more tax than the tariff brought in? Seems a bit simplistic and unrealistic to me but I'll take your word for it. How is that growth going to benefit the consumer, considering they still have to pay the tax?

 

It doesn't matter what the percentages are I'm afraid, you can't get away from the fact that the loss of tax from reducing tariffs has to be recovered from somewhere. Whether that's borrowing (can't believe a tory is dismissing increasing borrowing like it's nothing) or increasing tax elsewhere, either way there isn't really any benefit in it to the consumer because they will just end up paying for it somewhere else.

 

The only people who would benefit from removing tariffs on Vietnamese clothes would be the Vietnamese factory owners and the few people in the UK for whom importing Vietnamese clothes is a big part of their expenditure. For the average person there is no benefit.

 

GBP to Vietnamese Dong is not exactly a benchmark. What's actually happened is that the Dong has weakened. Had it not been for the collapse in the pound then it would have made gains against the Dong like the dollar and other currencies have.

[Sharpe's Fox]

awful day on the thread this, nothing about social justice, nothing about Jews, no Labi. what’s the point?

[Beechey]

20 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

 

So you're saying the removal or reduction of a tariff is guaranteed to generate economic growth that itself generates more tax than the tariff brought in? Seems a bit simplistic and unrealistic to me but I'll take your word for it. How is that growth going to benefit the consumer, considering they still have to pay the tax?

 

It doesn't matter what the percentages are I'm afraid, you can't get away from the fact that the loss of tax from reducing tariffs has to be recovered from somewhere. Whether that's borrowing (can't believe a tory is dismissing increasing borrowing like it's nothing) or increasing tax elsewhere, either way there isn't really any benefit in it to the consumer because they will just end up paying for it somewhere else.

 

The only people who would benefit from removing tariffs on Vietnamese clothes would be the Vietnamese factory owners and the few people in the UK for whom importing Vietnamese clothes is a big part of their expenditure. For the average person there is no benefit.

 

GBP to Vietnamese Dong is not exactly a benchmark. What's actually happened is that the Dong has weakened. Had it not been for the collapse in the pound then it would have made gains against the Dong like the dollar and other currencies have.

No I think you misunderstand me, I'm saying growth in general will pay for any tax revenue lost. The last quarter alone (I read it was estimated at 0.2% or 0.3%) will have probably paid for it if we removed almost all duties on imports. Who says I'm a Tory? I certainly don't have a membership and I've voted for other parties in the past (would probably vote Lib Dem if not for their EU and defence policies). I'm fiscally conservative for sure, but ultimately I believe helping the consumer. I'm a boring centrist. Vietnamese Dong vs the Dollar is steady and has been for ages, however against the Euro it has also dropped. Regardless, imports from Vietnam are better in this situation, same goes for Bangladesh.

 

This goes without saying we're now running a £3.6bn current budget surplus (government revenue minus all spending (other than capital spending)), so really, no new taxes or cuts are even necessary.

Edited 11 April 2018 by Beechey

[Alf Bentley]

9 hours ago, Milo said:

Remoaners are getting a bit desperate, no?

 

The economy will collapse

then

We will have no trade deals

now

We will have lower food standards 

 

I’m happy to provide a barrel of anyone needs to scrape it. 

 

 

I have said before that I don’t feel particularly strongly either way. I’m sure there will be some positive and some negatives, but the constant whining...jeez...

 

 

If you don't feel particularly strongly either way, why refer to "Remoaners" and "constant whining"?

 

There's a perfectly neutral term: "Remainers". Just like those on the other side are normally referred to as "Leavers", "Brexiters" or "Brexiteers".

 

I presume you think that, having lost the referendum, the 48% who disagreed should stop "moaning" and shut the fvck up? Should we get all happy-clappy and pretend we think it's going to be great, even if we don't believe that?

Sorry, but democracy and free speech don't work that way. We have our say even though we've lost a particular vote - and we have the right to campaign for change, as Brexit supporters have done.

 

Over the decades when EU membership was the democratically-decided norm, did you think that Farage and all the other Brexiteers should stop their "constant whining" about the EU?

I don't remember anyone saying that. I certainly didn't think that myself. I disagreed with their views, but felt they had an absolute right to campaign for change.

 

Maybe Brexit will create a wonderland for us all, or have little impact. Personally, I think it's going to be somewhere between mildly harmful and destructively damaging to British society.

 

I don't expect anyone else to stop "moaning" about their opinions - and I won't stop "moaning" about mine, even if people hostile to democracy and free speech want to shut down debate.