A hard brexit trade proposal

When we leave in a couple of months we will revert to the EU WTO tarrifs for trade (with suitably amended quotas). This is clearly not in our interests as much of the EU schedule is set by other nations with different climates and industries and thus tariffs on things we consume but do not produce.

To alleviate this I would suggest a day 1 post Brexit offer to every nation other than hostile states (Russia/NK/Syria etc) and the EU (draw your own venn diagram on that one). We remove tarrifs on all produce we do not produce in a bilateral 2 year time limited trade deal. We don't ask for anything in return other than a good faith commitment to negotiate a comprehensive two way trade deal during those two years, if no deal is forthcoming they revert to our WTO schedule. This would both ensure we are not needlessly tariff goods we do not produce reducing consumer costs, give an incentive to the world to come to the table, and instantly make the EU uncompetitive until they come to us with a fair mutually beneficial trade deal, no strings on fishing, gib, NI etc attached.

Thoughts?
 
When we leave in a couple of months we will revert to the EU WTO tarrifs for trade (with suitably amended quotas). This is clearly not in our interests as much of the EU schedule is set by other nations with different climates and industries and thus tariffs on things we consume but do not produce.

To alleviate this I would suggest a day 1 post Brexit offer to every nation other than hostile states (Russia/NK/Syria etc) and the EU (draw your own venn diagram on that one). We remove tarrifs on all produce we do not produce in a bilateral 2 year time limited trade deal. We don't ask for anything in return other than a good faith commitment to negotiate a comprehensive two way trade deal during those two years, if no deal is forthcoming they revert to our WTO schedule. This would both ensure we are not needlessly tariff goods we do not produce reducing consumer costs, give an incentive to the world to come to the table, and instantly make the EU uncompetitive until they come to us with a fair mutually beneficial trade deal, no strings on fishing, gib, NI etc attached.

Thoughts?
Whilst I agree with the sentiments, the British Government is psychologically incapable of acting unilaterality.
 
Yippee another Brexit thread, just what arrse needs
 
When we leave in a couple of months we will revert to the EU WTO tarrifs for trade (with suitably amended quotas). This is clearly not in our interests as much of the EU schedule is set by other nations with different climates and industries and thus tariffs on things we consume but do not produce.

To alleviate this I would suggest a day 1 post Brexit offer to every nation other than hostile states (Russia/NK/Syria etc) and the EU (draw your own venn diagram on that one). We remove tarrifs on all produce we do not produce in a bilateral 2 year time limited trade deal. We don't ask for anything in return other than a good faith commitment to negotiate a comprehensive two way trade deal during those two years, if no deal is forthcoming they revert to our WTO schedule. This would both ensure we are not needlessly tariff goods we do not produce reducing consumer costs, give an incentive to the world to come to the table, and instantly make the EU uncompetitive until they come to us with a fair mutually beneficial trade deal, no strings on fishing, gib, NI etc attached.

Thoughts?
If you are a member of the WTO you have to offer the same deal to all WTO members. The exception is if you have a free trade deal with one or more countries.

The Canada-EU trade deal will still apply to the UK on day plus one of Brexit, provided the UK gets its finger out and amends the appropriate UK legislation to disentangle it from the EU before then and gives Canada enough notice to do the same, so that's one free trade deal covered.

I understand that under WTO rules a trade deal can come in to effect on a preliminary basis, but you have a limit of 10 years to make it final. The UK may plan on duplicating existing terms of EU trade deals with other non-EU countries in this way, as is being done with Canada (see above). I don't know what discussions the UK is having with other countries aside from Canada.

In each case the bulk of the monetary value of existing trade will consist of a limited number of categories. Even if a preliminary trade deal does not immediately cover all categories, limited trade deals can cover most of the monetary value of the trade and be extended later. With a few exceptions, WTO tariffs are generally fairly low and the main focus on trade deals is non-tariff barriers so these sorts of details are important.

There are also treaties which have an effect on trade but which are not themselves strictly "trade" deals. These cover things like nuclear cooperation (needed for things like medical isotopes and uranium fuel with many countries) or air transport. The UK has been signing treaties on these issues with other countries for some time now in preparation for the possibility of of a no-deal Brexit.

The most contentious problem is probably going to involve agricultural import and export quotas. These are currently rolled up in overall EU quotas and need to be split between the EU and the UK. Other countries will absolutely insist on this split taking place, so it is not something the EU or the UK can avoid doing. However there will likely be disagreements on the details of how the split is done.

The big issue for the UK in the coming months is whether the limited amount of time left in the legislative calendar is going to be used to prepare for no-deal Brexit or whether it is used to try to salvage a deal that may or may not be salvageable. Not taking a good deal that is on the table is poor planning, but failing to recognise that there is no acceptable deal to be made at this time is equally piss poor planning on the behalf of its proponents. Which answer of the options is the best will rely on a judgement of what is politically possible in the time remaining.
 
Last edited:

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Yippee another Brexit thread, just what arrse needs
Might just be the reason there is a Brexit forum, rather than just a brexit thread in the Int Cell, which is how it started out!
 

Daxx

MIA
Book Reviewer
We need more Brexit threads.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
If you are a member of the WTO you have to offer the same deal to all WTO members. The exception is if you have a free trade deal with one or more countries.

The Canada-EU trade deal will still apply to the UK on day plus one of Brexit, provided the UK gets its finger out and amends the appropriate UK legislation to disentangle it from the EU before then and gives Canada enough notice to do the same, so that's one free trade deal covered.

I understand that under WTO rules a trade deal can come in to effect on a preliminary basis, but you have a limit of 10 years to make it final. The UK may plan on duplicating existing terms of EU trade deals with other non-EU countries in this way, as is being done with Canada (see above). I don't know what discussions the UK is having with other countries aside from Canada.

In each case the bulk of the monetary value of existing trade will consist of a limited number of categories. Even if a preliminary trade deal does not immediately cover all categories, limited trade deals can cover most of the monetary value of the trade and be extended later. With a few exceptions, WTO tariffs are generally fairly low and the main focus on trade deals is non-tariff barriers so these sorts of details are important.

There are also treaties which have an effect on trade but which are not themselves strictly "trade" deals. These cover things like nuclear cooperation (needed for things like medical isotopes and uranium fuel with many countries) or air transport. The UK has been signing treaties on these issues with other countries for some time now in preparation for the possibility of of a no-deal Brexit.

The most contentious problem is probably going to involve agricultural import and export quotas. These are currently rolled up in overall EU quotas and need to be split between the EU and the UK. Other countries will absolutely insist on this split taking place, so it is not something the EU or the UK can avoid doing. However there will likely be disagreements on the details of how the split is done.

The big issue for the UK in the coming months is whether the limited amount of time left in the legislative calendar is going to be used to prepare for no-deal Brexit or whether it is used to try to salvage a deal that may or may not be salvageable. Not taking a good deal that is on the table is poor planning, but failing to recognise that there is no acceptable deal to be made at this time is equally piss poor planning on the behalf of its proponents. Which answer of the options is the best will rely on a judgement of what is politically possible in the time remaining.
I don't have the link but a few weeks ago so done put up a bit of info which points out that there is a two year "cushion" whereby just this sort of proposal could be implemented. It was suggested as Britain's way of approaching a hard brexit.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor

Oyibo

LE
I don't have the link but a few weeks ago so done put up a bit of info which points out that there is a two year "cushion" whereby just this sort of proposal could be implemented. It was suggested as Britain's way of approaching a hard brexit.
Vienna Convention?
 
If you are a member of the WTO you have to offer the same deal to all WTO members. The exception is if you have a free trade deal with one or more countries.

The Canada-EU trade deal will still apply to the UK on day plus one of Brexit, provided the UK gets its finger out and amends the appropriate UK legislation to disentangle it from the EU before then and gives Canada enough notice to do the same, so that's one free trade deal covered.

I understand that under WTO rules a trade deal can come in to effect on a preliminary basis, but you have a limit of 10 years to make it final. The UK may plan on duplicating existing terms of EU trade deals with other non-EU countries in this way, as is being done with Canada (see above). I don't know what discussions the UK is having with other countries aside from Canada.

In each case the bulk of the monetary value of existing trade will consist of a limited number of categories. Even if a preliminary trade deal does not immediately cover all categories, limited trade deals can cover most of the monetary value of the trade and be extended later. With a few exceptions, WTO tariffs are generally fairly low and the main focus on trade deals is non-tariff barriers so these sorts of details are important.

There are also treaties which have an effect on trade but which are not themselves strictly "trade" deals. These cover things like nuclear cooperation (needed for things like medical isotopes and uranium fuel with many countries) or air transport. The UK has been signing treaties on these issues with other countries for some time now in preparation for the possibility of of a no-deal Brexit.

The most contentious problem is probably going to involve agricultural import and export quotas. These are currently rolled up in overall EU quotas and need to be split between the EU and the UK. Other countries will absolutely insist on this split taking place, so it is not something the EU or the UK can avoid doing. However there will likely be disagreements on the details of how the split is done.

The big issue for the UK in the coming months is whether the limited amount of time left in the legislative calendar is going to be used to prepare for no-deal Brexit or whether it is used to try to salvage a deal that may or may not be salvageable. Not taking a good deal that is on the table is poor planning, but failing to recognise that there is no acceptable deal to be made at this time is equally piss poor planning on the behalf of its proponents. Which answer of the options is the best will rely on a judgement of what is politically possible in the time remaining.
Should have mentioned the EU TAs, yes clearly it is to mutual benefit to run those on as bilateral treaties for the same up to two period while we improve them. Hopefully we are on that. Add those to the default TA and we are up and running and the EU are open to come of WTO rates as soon as they stop playing silly buggers, or all their trade with us goes elsewhere.
 
I don't have the link but a few weeks ago so done put up a bit of info which points out that there is a two year "cushion" whereby just this sort of proposal could be implemented. It was suggested as Britain's way of approaching a hard brexit.
From what I understand, making the Canada-EU deal a Canada-UK deal requires amending legislation in Canada. For example, the schedule of tariffs comes under legislation and has to be amended to add "UK" to the list, and there are numerous other examples of this. There is no provision to do this without amending the affected legislation.

These minor technical changes can all be handled in an omnibus bill, but it has to go through the various readings in the House of Commons and the Senate (rubber stamp House of Lords equivalent), and signed by the Governor General (Her Majesty's stand-in in Canada). I don't see any problem in that taking place, but it all takes a certain minimum amount of time and has to fit in with other legislation which the government has to get through in this session as well. So far as I know the process isn't going to start until we get the go-ahead from the UK that this is their intended direction.

I assume the UK has to do the same, unless you have already passed legislation which lets the cabinet make the necessary amendments as needed without sending them through the HoC and HoL. I don't know if an order in council can cover this, I suspect not. This is not a matter just of what the WTO rules say, but also of what the domestic rules are with regards to how the legislative process works, which WTO doesn't address.

I will harken back to the changes in the Royal Succession legislation which happened not long ago. From Canada's perspective Cameron made a complete mess of it by leaving the details to the last minute and so not leaving enough time for it to get through Canada's legislative process by the normal route. As a result we had to take legislative short cuts, which in turn resulted in the whole thing ending up in court because of constitutional side effects. We had a situation where everyone fully supported the intent (including the people who challenged the means in court), but which was in danger of failing for technical reasons because of Cameron not having a sufficient sense of urgency. I don't know if it even made the news in the UK, but it was a big deal here in Canada.

Both PMs have publicly committed to a "seamless transition" but I can imagine the trade deal falling through the same legislative cracks if a firm decision one way or the other isn't made soon enough.
 
You assume Canada for example will want to
I don't assume anything. If they don't want to port EU trade deals then they would be free to take up the RoW ex enemies/EU freeby for the two years instead.
 
You assume Canada for example will want to
The rest of whatever you were trying to say appears to have either Brexited from your post or remained in Ireland.

As noted in a previous post, both PMs have publicly committed to ensuring there is a "seamless transition" in trade which is to continue on the same terms as currently applying under existing Canada-EU free trade agreements. There are news videos on Youtube of them saying this if you want to hear it from their own lips. Whatever problems or bad feelings the EU and the UK may have between them are matters for the EU and the UK to settle. Canadian interests revolve around ensuring that trade continues with our largest trading partner in the EU. I can't answer for other countries, but I don't know of any reason why they would feel differently.

The only question at this point is whether or not the UK is leaving enough time for the legal and legislative technicalities to take place.
 

Latest Threads

Top