Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 144

Thread: The Problem with Trade Deals : Differential Tariffs...

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    380
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 139 Times in 115 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by El Jefe View Post
    I'm sure that he wasn't suggesting that people shouldn't pay tax..
    i wasn't suggesting he did.

    He said

    Imagine a mythical sovereign country, tied in a free trade agreement with the USA ......but, because of that free trade access, they have to pay a huge subsidy - AND, obey the laws and regulations of the USA.......would that in your opinion be democratic???
    A simple FTA typically does not require any subsidy in either direction.

    However the case the UK is in is far beyond a simple reduction or elimination of tariffs.

    The agreement the UK has with the EU encompasses mutual setting and recognition of regulations, a permanent arbitration mechanism open to non governmental entities, a (big) UK input into decisions, cross border development grants and much more.

    Puerto Rico has a similar agreement with the US, except it has little representation at decision making bodies, and is subject to federal taxes (even greater financial integration than the UK)

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 29 Times in 22 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by beelbeeb View Post
    i wasn't suggesting he did.

    He said



    A simple FTA typically does not require any subsidy in either direction.
    Totally agree - but that is where you made your mistake. Puerto Rico hasn't got a FTA with the US because it isnt a Sovereign Country - it is part of the US.

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    380
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 139 Times in 115 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by El Jefe View Post
    Totally agree - but that is where you made your mistake. Puerto Rico hasn't got a FTA with the US because it isnt a Sovereign Country - it is part of the US.
    It is an unincorporated territory of the US , but not part of the US.

    My central point is that a FTA is a far lower level of cooperation than the single market.

    For example as an EU member the UK Vehicle Certification Agency van certify a vehicle (let's say a low volume sports car) as legal for use on the public roads and that certification is valid in all 27 other member states.

    This is achievable because parliament has agreed that the UK VCA will abide by the same set of guidelines as all its equivalent agencies in other EU states. This requires pushing some of the decision making "up a level" to a multinational agency. The UK still has input as it has a voice in the EU level agency, but it has agreed to cooperate and so the other members have agreed to accept it's certification.

    This is removes a trade barrier that a simple FTA removing tariffs cannot.

    It is impossible to achieve the reduction of trade barriers that the SM/CU archives without creating something like the SM/CU.

    However we are drifting off topic. Which was that the UK unilaterally cutting tariffs will not necessarily result in any other countries cutting their tariffs.

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 29 Times in 22 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by beelbeeb View Post
    It is an unincorporated territory of the US , but not part of the US.

    My central point is that a FTA is a far lower level of cooperation than the single market.

    For example as an EU member the UK Vehicle Certification Agency van certify a vehicle (let's say a low volume sports car) as legal for use on the public roads and that certification is valid in all 27 other member states.

    This is achievable because parliament has agreed that the UK VCA will abide by the same set of guidelines as all its equivalent agencies in other EU states. This requires pushing some of the decision making "up a level" to a multinational agency. The UK still has input as it has a voice in the EU level agency, but it has agreed to cooperate and so the other members have agreed to accept it's certification.

    This is removes a trade barrier that a simple FTA removing tariffs cannot.
    Well with regard to cars, whether you have an FTA or not they still have to comply with local regulations. Our low volume sports car manufacturers Lotus and Morgan have no problem selling their products into the USA (where we operate under WTO rules without an FTA) as long as they meet local regulations.



    However we are drifting off topic. Which was that the UK unilaterally cutting tariffs will not necessarily result in any other countries cutting their tariffs.
    That is true - but is it the place of the UK to assist other countries economies?

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    380
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 139 Times in 115 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by El Jefe View Post
    Well with regard to cars, whether you have an FTA or not they still have to comply with local regulations. Our low volume sports car manufacturers Lotus and Morgan have no problem selling their products into the USA (where we operate under WTO rules without an FTA) as long as they meet local regulations.
    yes they can but in addition to making changes to comply with different regulations they get their vehicles certified separately for the US market.

    At the mo, Morgan build a car, get it certified by the UK VCA and it's done, they can sell across Europe. If they want to sell in other markets (e.g. USA) they have to recertify for those markets.

    Post Brexit, they will have to certify with the UK VCA, then an EU agency with the attendant extra cost, hassle of shipping cars to that country and translating technical documents etc) for the EU.

    Fun fact, Morgan is actually the largest UK owned car manufacturer.

    That is true - but is it the place of the UK to assist other countries economies?
    wasn't one of the great prizes of Brexit, which would more than make up for the increased trade barriers to our biggest markets, the ability to negotiate lower tariffs with other nations?

    Now you are saying "meh"?

    If we don't reduce trade barriers with other nations, and in fact increase them, how our exporters supposed to increase exports?

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    2,378
    Thanks
    206
    Thanked 173 Times in 151 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by beelbeeb View Post
    so the difference between US citizens voting for electors who the are "expected" to cast a ballot for a named candidate and EU citizens voting for MEPs who are expected to cast a ballot for a named candidate is?....
    You are losing it again! Some states,(not sure yet how many), actually require the Electors to vote for the most popular candidate....but even if that is not guaranteed, the electoral college DO vote for a candidate.....whereas the EU Executive, (Commission), have no democratic association whatsoever.They are a politburo!
    Remember that once the head of the US executive is chosen they personally propose the members of the executive to he confirmed by the legislature. The members of the executive are proposed by one man.
    That is no different to the UK PM's appointment of the cabinet.
    Once the head of the EU executive is chosen the members of their cabinet are proposed by the member states.
    Yep - a politburo as I said. But you also ignore that the President and executive are ALL American, and they legislate for America....they don't legislate for many more countries do they??

    The equivalent would be if the US presidents cabinet was made up of 50 members, each proposed by a state government rather than (say) somebody who organised the President's daughter's wedding.
    Really? Well , I realise you don't appreciate it, but actually, just because you make a graphic comparison like that doesn't make it so!! Especially as you don't even know anyone likely to be employed by a US President in performing such a task. However, in any event, anyone who organises the wedding of a President would probably make a better job of organising the EU.
    so no solution. Thought not.
    Don't be so silly - I've already offered the obvious solution - get rid of the EU, and establish a RFTA.....simples!!
    If the UK is committed to not allowing a single decision affecting it to be made outside it's borders, even if it has a day in that decision or even champions the outcome, then the UK is going to be unable to make any significant trade agreement or even participate in the UN, NATO or WTO.
    What the hell are you on about!!Stop comparing a mutual defence alliance with a NON -necessary political entity for furthering economic growth via trade.
    The EU is an absolutely UNNECESSARY organisation for trading purposes - it is ONLY appropriate for forming a federation of states - and the sooner the USSE, (or even the USE if they get around to democratic changes), the better...but I for one, would still wish to be a non-member.

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    2,378
    Thanks
    206
    Thanked 173 Times in 151 Posts
    Incidentally Beelbeep - further to your very relevant point of Electors voting in accordance with their own wishes, I have found this - "There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions." http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967

    It seems that some Electors have indeed violated their 'pledge' to vote for the most popular vote....

    I would have thought that they would have closed that loophole by now!!

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Pixels on your screen
    Posts
    6,685
    Thanks
    1,011
    Thanked 950 Times in 699 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by beelbeeb View Post
    yes they can but in addition to making changes to comply with different regulations they get their vehicles certified separately for the US market.

    At the mo, Morgan build a car, get it certified by the UK VCA and it's done, they can sell across Europe. If they want to sell in other markets (e.g. USA) they have to recertify for those markets.

    Post Brexit, they will have to certify with the UK VCA, then an EU agency with the attendant extra cost, hassle of shipping cars to that country and translating technical documents etc) for the EU.

    Fun fact, Morgan is actually the largest UK owned car manufacturer.
    I don't think you should post this (in bold) as if it is a fact. You don't know what will happen post Brexit any more than anyone else.
    Perhaps you meant to post "They might have to" or "may have to ".
    Because they might not, at all.

  9. #119
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 29 Times in 22 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by beelbeeb View Post
    yes they can but in addition to making changes to comply with different regulations they get their vehicles certified separately for the US market.

    At the mo, Morgan build a car, get it certified by the UK VCA and it's done, they can sell across Europe. If they want to sell in other markets (e.g. USA) they have to recertify for those markets.

    Post Brexit, they will have to certify with the UK VCA, then an EU agency with the attendant extra cost, hassle of shipping cars to that country and translating technical documents etc) for the EU.
    But Morgan still have to change their cars to meet local regulations - there is not one single set of regulations for cars across europe.

    wasn't one of the great prizes of Brexit, which would more than make up for the increased trade barriers to our biggest markets, the ability to negotiate lower tariffs with other nations?

    Now you are saying "meh"?

    If we don't reduce trade barriers with other nations, and in fact increase them, how our exporters supposed to increase exports?
    If we are finally able to negotiate trade deals that benefit the UK I'm not sure why you would think we cannot do so.

    Also I would point out that tariffs are but one small part of the cost of exports.

  10. #120
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    380
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 139 Times in 115 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevlin View Post
    Incidentally Beelbeep - further to your very relevant point of Electors voting in accordance with their own wishes, I have found this - "There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions." http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967

    It seems that some Electors have indeed violated their 'pledge' to vote for the most popular vote....

    I would have thought that they would have closed that loophole by now!!
    exactly my point, 7 electors voted against their voters wishes in the 2016 elections.

    The electors are bound by state law, not federal law. So even if their state made it a legal requirement to vote for X and they voted for Y, they would have broken state law but their vote (even in violation of their states law) for Y would still stand.

    The electors for the EU comission president (MEPs) are similarly bound. They could vote for someone else.

    There is little difference between the two systems on this point. MEPs are elected by PR in smaller regions whilst US electors are (mostly) a block of votes per state. But both are directly elected representatives who then cast a vote for a previously declared candidate.

Similar Threads

  1. Corbyn says 'no deals' with SNP
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-06-2017, 01:47 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 19-07-2016, 02:57 PM
  3. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 23-06-2016, 04:05 PM
  4. UK 'wouldn't face tariffs' outside EU
    By stevectaylor in forum Brexit
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-06-2016, 09:49 PM
  5. Is it legal to restrict phone deals to Under 24's ?
    By johnofgwent in forum Political Correctness Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 25-09-2012, 11:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •