FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

WTO plus plus

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Given WTO is looking likely, what changes could be made, to make it a better? Keeping in the realms of realism....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Tariff free condoms and lube, I'd vote for that

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"Given WTO is looking likely, what changes could be made, to make it a better? Keeping in the realms of realism...."

if you want a genuine answer..... nothing can be chnaged.... you start of on the basic schedule and then it get changed once you start making "trade agreements" or unless your WTO changes to the basic schedule is agreed by every member.... (thats why people are if you think it is annoying having to run everything back 27 other members of the EU, wait till you have to run everything thru the 165 members of the WTO.. and every member has to agree!)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *wosmilersCouple
over a year ago

Heathrowish

To be realistic.....in the time we have left, there are 2 choices. Firstly, May's deal with May inextricably linked to it or secondly WTO with another PM.

So, if we end up with WTO, I would like to see zero tariffs of all vehicles and vehicle components. This is of course in reality, a fantasy.

But, to be flippant I want to see free movement of my bowels. Especially after my Xmas lunch.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

The problem with WTO terms alone is that, unless we also have some sort of trade agreement with the EU, if we don't have a hard customs border between Northern Ireland and The Republic, we leave ourselves open to being sued for unfair trading. If we do have a customs border between Northern Ireland and The Republic then we're in violation of the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, an internationally registered treaty, violation of which could lead to legal action being taken against us by Ireland or the other guarantors (USA & EU). Such action could even lead to economic sanctions and, in law, though I think extremely unlikely in practice, military intervention.

Either way, starting of our new WTO terms of trade in violation of those terms or an internationally registered treaty is not a good way to start and wouldn't do anything to improve our credibility when it came to getting our trading schedule changed, never mind new FTAs with anyone.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Given WTO is looking likely, what changes could be made, to make it a better? Keeping in the realms of realism....

if you want a genuine answer..... nothing can be chnaged.... you start of on the basic schedule and then it get changed once you start making "trade agreements" or unless your WTO changes to the basic schedule is agreed by every member.... (thats why people are if you think it is annoying having to run everything back 27 other members of the EU, wait till you have to run everything thru the 165 members of the WTO.. and every member has to agree!)"

However there is another factor to take into account -

Trumps unilateral tarrifs on trade citing security - will the WTO survive? It's relatively modern in terms of world institutions - created in the 90's to replace GATT which was set up at the end of the war. The real question is why do we need rules? Let's do a free for all!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock


"The problem with WTO terms alone is that, unless we also have some sort of trade agreement with the EU, if we don't have a hard customs border between Northern Ireland and The Republic, we leave ourselves open to being sued for unfair trading. If we do have a customs border between Northern Ireland and The Republic then we're in violation of the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, an internationally registered treaty, violation of which could lead to legal action being taken against us by Ireland or the other guarantors (USA & EU). Such action could even lead to economic sanctions and, in law, though I think extremely unlikely in practice, military intervention.

Either way, starting of our new WTO terms of trade in violation of those terms or an internationally registered treaty is not a good way to start and wouldn't do anything to improve our credibility when it came to getting our trading schedule changed, never mind new FTAs with anyone.

"

What you failed to mention though is that under WTO rules there are exemptions. As Jacob Rees Mogg pointed out earlier this year, "There are exemptions under WTO rules for your immediate neighbour with whom you have a border. And there are exemptions under WTO when you are in the process of negotiating a Free Trade Deal, which is a 10 year exemption".

So as Jacob Rees Mogg points out if we leave on WTO rules we'd have a 10 year exemption to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"The problem with WTO terms alone is that, unless we also have some sort of trade agreement with the EU, if we don't have a hard customs border between Northern Ireland and The Republic, we leave ourselves open to being sued for unfair trading. If we do have a customs border between Northern Ireland and The Republic then we're in violation of the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, an internationally registered treaty, violation of which could lead to legal action being taken against us by Ireland or the other guarantors (USA & EU). Such action could even lead to economic sanctions and, in law, though I think extremely unlikely in practice, military intervention.

Either way, starting of our new WTO terms of trade in violation of those terms or an internationally registered treaty is not a good way to start and wouldn't do anything to improve our credibility when it came to getting our trading schedule changed, never mind new FTAs with anyone.

What you failed to mention though is that under WTO rules there are exemptions. As Jacob Rees Mogg pointed out earlier this year, "There are exemptions under WTO rules for your immediate neighbour with whom you have a border. And there are exemptions under WTO when you are in the process of negotiating a Free Trade Deal, which is a 10 year exemption".

So as Jacob Rees Mogg points out if we leave on WTO rules we'd have a 10 year exemption to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU. "

that is only is EVERY single memeber of the WTO agrees to it.....

and since Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Russia, and India have all objected to it..... that won't happen

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock


"The problem with WTO terms alone is that, unless we also have some sort of trade agreement with the EU, if we don't have a hard customs border between Northern Ireland and The Republic, we leave ourselves open to being sued for unfair trading. If we do have a customs border between Northern Ireland and The Republic then we're in violation of the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, an internationally registered treaty, violation of which could lead to legal action being taken against us by Ireland or the other guarantors (USA & EU). Such action could even lead to economic sanctions and, in law, though I think extremely unlikely in practice, military intervention.

Either way, starting of our new WTO terms of trade in violation of those terms or an internationally registered treaty is not a good way to start and wouldn't do anything to improve our credibility when it came to getting our trading schedule changed, never mind new FTAs with anyone.

What you failed to mention though is that under WTO rules there are exemptions. As Jacob Rees Mogg pointed out earlier this year, "There are exemptions under WTO rules for your immediate neighbour with whom you have a border. And there are exemptions under WTO when you are in the process of negotiating a Free Trade Deal, which is a 10 year exemption".

So as Jacob Rees Mogg points out if we leave on WTO rules we'd have a 10 year exemption to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU.

that is only is EVERY single memeber of the WTO agrees to it.....

and since Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Russia, and India have all objected to it..... that won't happen"

Rees Mogg was quizzed about this on television by an expert in WTO rules, they both agreed that only 2 countries would need to agree.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We've grown fat on the nipple of EU trade. We've grown into a nice big cash cow for the EU too. Now we need a bit of time to be weaned off it and start taking our own solids. Bitty Bitty.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"

Rees Mogg was quizzed about this on television by an expert in WTO rules, they both agreed that only 2 countries would need to agree. "

here is something that is going to come as a shocker to most people.... mogg and/or his advisors are misinterpreting the rules

so here is how it is laid out....

"The rules of the WTO are laid out in GATT (General Agreement Trade on Tariffs and Trade). Article XXIV of GATT covers Customs Unions and Free Trade Areas. They are slightly different types of Regional Trade Agreements which are the primary exceptions to the Most Favoured Nation rule laid out in Article 1 of GATT.

Jacob is labouring under a misapprehension. A gross misinterpretation of the context of an “understanding” note used to assist comprehension of the Treaty. Specifically the note shown below in an Ad Art to GATT Article XXIV:5. The 2nd paragraph says that the “reasonable length of time” referred to in Article XXIV should not normally exceed 10 years."

" The “reasonable length of time” is found in Article XXIV is in para 5 sub-para c and refers back to sub-paras a & b on the formation of Customs Unions and Free Trade Areas respectively. It concerns how long interim arrangements of a new FTA/CU can operate as an exception to the Most Favoured Nation rule before they become established by treaty."

So this 10-year period has nothing whatsoever to do with any previously existing arrangement.

.... but hey.... if it has just taken me 15 minutes to find this out.... i don't see how someone as smart as jacob could keep trotting this out....

apparently it is a favourite of brexiteers to trott out, and if it WAS true, don't you think the MSM and business's would have not been worrying as much as they are!

unless you are suggesting that jacob rees moggs is actually smarter than the people who have to do this stuff for an actual living!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

The exact same argument and points raised by Centy have been comprehensively answered on the Trade Talks thread.

The reality is is that, while exemptions to WTO rules are possible, there are no exemptions available that would solve the Irish border problem without an agreed RTA, FTA or Customs Union.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock


"The exact same argument and points raised by Centy have been comprehensively answered on the Trade Talks thread.

The reality is is that, while exemptions to WTO rules are possible, there are no exemptions available that would solve the Irish border problem without an agreed RTA, FTA or Customs Union.

"

The points raised haven't been comprehensively answered on the Trade talks thread. You and Fabio have just given your own remain biased view of it, as you accuse Rees Mogg of giving his own Leave biased interpretation of it. There are different interpretations to what the rules on this say. At the end of the day it would be left to the discretion of the WTO to decide and they could either side with Rees Moggs view or side with your view. We wouldn't know until it actually happened. As the WTO grant exemptions in exceptional circumstances then it's fair to say the Good Friday agreement and peace in Northern Ireland would be an exceptional circumstance worthy of granting an exemption.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes


"The exact same argument and points raised by Centy have been comprehensively answered on the Trade Talks thread.

The reality is is that, while exemptions to WTO rules are possible, there are no exemptions available that would solve the Irish border problem without an agreed RTA, FTA or Customs Union.

The points raised haven't been comprehensively answered on the Trade talks thread. You and Fabio have just given your own remain biased view of it, as you accuse Rees Mogg of giving his own Leave biased interpretation of it. There are different interpretations to what the rules on this say. At the end of the day it would be left to the discretion of the WTO to decide and they could either side with Rees Moggs view or side with your view. We wouldn't know until it actually happened. As the WTO grant exemptions in exceptional circumstances then it's fair to say the Good Friday agreement and peace in Northern Ireland would be an exceptional circumstance worthy of granting an exemption. "

Again this point has been answered on the other thread but the long and short of it is the WTO is no more likely, in fact probably less likely, to allow the UK to cherry pick than the EU was. A reasonable RTA, FTA or Customs Union would have to be in place for a WTO exemption and the WTO, just like the EU, won't let us cherry pick the advantages of an RTA, FTA or Customs Union without actually being in one. It's almost like the BREXITERS have learnt nothing over the last 2.5 years; and the WTO has even less to loose than the EU.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

The ten year exemption is up to interpretation.... despite it not actually being part of the rules which can be pointed to (from what I can tell it’s only just been a JRM soundbite. But my google skills are naff...)

But the divorce bill position is absolute. Despite HOL saying multiple interpretations.

And while all sides have their biases, when one provides lots of reasons for it, and the other is a soundbite, you need to ask which is likely to be more biased.

The exceptional waive is up for grabs tho.

Play.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The problem with WTO terms alone is that, unless we also have some sort of trade agreement with the EU, if we don't have a hard customs border between Northern Ireland and The Republic, we leave ourselves open to being sued for unfair trading. If we do have a customs border between Northern Ireland and The Republic then we're in violation of the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, an internationally registered treaty, violation of which could lead to legal action being taken against us by Ireland or the other guarantors (USA & EU). Such action could even lead to economic sanctions and, in law, though I think extremely unlikely in practice, military intervention.

Either way, starting of our new WTO terms of trade in violation of those terms or an internationally registered treaty is not a good way to start and wouldn't do anything to improve our credibility when it came to getting our trading schedule changed, never mind new FTAs with anyone.

What you failed to mention though is that under WTO rules there are exemptions. As Jacob Rees Mogg pointed out earlier this year, "There are exemptions under WTO rules for your immediate neighbour with whom you have a border. And there are exemptions under WTO when you are in the process of negotiating a Free Trade Deal, which is a 10 year exemption".

So as Jacob Rees Mogg points out if we leave on WTO rules we'd have a 10 year exemption to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU.

that is only is EVERY single memeber of the WTO agrees to it.....

and since Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Russia, and India have all objected to it..... that won't happen"

Also I think some WTO members would question whether sharing a land border with the Irish Republic would constitute a border with the EU.

Remember, some members have market positions to protect or expand with us joining. Some might not want to make it easier to access much more than the Irish market.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Apparently there are now 20 countries objecting to our proposed WTO schedule which includes:

Russia, Argentina, Brazil, India , Paraguay, USA, Australia, Mexico, New Zealand, China, Canada, Thailand, Taiwan .....

Some really good friends on the list and a couple you would expect - Liam Fox has his work cut out!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Apparently there are now 20 countries objecting to our proposed WTO schedule which includes:

Russia, Argentina, Brazil, India , Paraguay, USA, Australia, Mexico, New Zealand, China, Canada, Thailand, Taiwan .....

Some really good friends on the list and a couple you would expect - Liam Fox has his work cut out!"

But but but.... trading on WTO rules will be so much better and easier

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So if we crash out and we leave with WTO rules.

We will join that other great trading nation MAURITANIA!

At the moment they are the only state who trade soley on WTO rules (NO TRADE DEALS)- so let's look at their success :

GDP $4,714 MILLION $. - that's 0.2% of the UK's GDP.

50% of their exports are Iron Ore

Between 1- 17% of its population still live in slavery ( see there is always someone worse off than you)

So yes as brexiteers say trading under WTO RULES will be fine - and the UK won't have any trade deals for at least 18 months - things ain't what they used to be!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

One message that has been posted on here many times by leavers is that trading just on WTO terms is fine and we won't be any worse off by "crashing out"

Thing that's puzzled me though is if that's the case, why do they also clamour about being able to strike our own free trade deals if their no better than WTO

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *avidnsa69Man
over a year ago

Essex


"One message that has been posted on here many times by leavers is that trading just on WTO terms is fine and we won't be any worse off by "crashing out"

Thing that's puzzled me though is if that's the case, why do they also clamour about being able to strike our own free trade deals if their no better than WTO "

I suspect it's because they dont understand the concept of irony

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top