For example?

We (the consumer) would be the ones paying the tariff, just like we pay fuel duty.

Which we would if we signed a free trade deal.

Not an answer to the question put. I was looking for any example of an existing deal that is less equitable for our own requirements and the likely cost of negotiating an improvement.

What are you talking about? "open our car export market to far more countries"? Name one. Make what car tariffs more competitive for whom?

Car exports to Japan. Most of them have zero tariffs anyway but they only opened their car plants here because of our tariffs so if had an FTA with them they'd close their plants here.

Your turn.

Well half a dozen or so countries have already made approaches about post Brexit FTA - including India - so the population of just those few dwarfs that of the EU.


Lon - and that is the way it should be - instead of the tax payer subsidising most of the EU to enable businesses to trade tariff free. How keen would all these businesses be if THEY paid the EU subsidy instead of the taxpayer-----but in any event, neither the taxpayer nor the consumer would 'pay the tariff' with a FTA would they???? - and, probably the largest portion of our trade, which happens to be global, IS currently conducted via a tariff basis - so clearly, there is great scope for gains in this area.
And in addition, if the balance of trade continued to be hugely positive to the advantage of the EU, then the UK Treasury would actual gain in revenue.....so they might even be able to reduce that dreaded fuel duty......albeit, I wouldn't bank on it.
You should read up a bit more.....not all free trade deals remove tariffs on ALL products - but, it is worth stressing that the decision/agreement would be taken in the interests of the UK, BY the UK representatives.


It is ridiculous to attempt to nit -pick on specifics of trade deals - because Brexit is NOT just about trade. There is NO NEED whatsoever to have another bureaucratic, and expensive Parliament in order benefit fro trade - nor subsidise other countries in order to trade with them - nor have to apply EU regulations, even to UK businesses which don't even trade with the EU - nor cede responsible control of our borders - a responsibility that the vast majority of countries sensibly retain. It is absolutely ludicrous to merely look at tariffs to ascertain the benefits to be gained from Brexit . and as the EU to the UK car exports far outweigh the reverse - the French and Germans in particular, despite all the threats - will be more concerned than ourselves on this issue.


Do you really think that the UK only sells cars to the EU??? The EU exports to the UK car exports far outweigh the reverse - the French and Germans in particular, despite all the threats - will be more concerned than ourselves on this issue if an amicable trade deal isn't agree - but at least we could expect to expand on our non-EU car exports, because of the potential of improved trade deals.

Nonsense - do you risibly believe that the Japanese car manufacturers established manufacturing facilities in the UK just to export to the EU?? That was obviously a major reason, but the potential for increased car sales with the much bigger non-EU market should calm their nerves......and it would appear that they have!!
But I would repeat yet again- Brexit is FAR more than just trade tariffs..............as has been constantly pointed out!

You do know one of the major sticking ponts with the India EU talks is, don't you?

The U.K. Treasury would gain from the U.K. taxpayer, just like with fuel duty.

Not much of a free trade deal, then, is it.

Can you cite an existing EU deal that isn't in the interests of the UK? Or are we coming out for nothing?

I'm sure they will be concerned. Every credible economic commentator is concerned that this will do ongoing damage to the UK and EU economies.

To where? Where is waiting to lower tariffs so we can sell them more cars?

But the Japanese can sell to the much bigger non EU market from Japan, they only built factories here to overcome the 10% tariff barrier here.

Another day, another inch closer towards hard Brexit ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live
Yesterday Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, suggested that the UK could remain a partial member of the EU customs union. This morning on the Today programme a trade expert questioned that. Sir Andrew Cahn, the former chief executive of UK Trade and Investment and a former adviser to a former adviser to Lord Cockfield, the Conservative European commissioner who helped to create the single market in the 1980s, said the EU would not allow Britain to “cherry-pick” certain industries that could continue enjoying tariff-free trade in the customs union after Brexit. Fox suggested that the UK could be partially in the customs union like Turkey. Cahn said that Turkey’s trade deal with the EU did not include agriculture and services, and that agriculture was often a special case in trade deals. But he went on:

What I think is more difficult to contemplate is the idea that you have cars inside but some sort of widgets outside.

The idea is that cars which we care about, aerospace which we care about, financial services which we care about, wouldn’t it be great if they were in the customs union.

Would that be legal under the WTO (World Trade Organisation)? I doubt, even if we got away with it I don’t think the EU side would be prepared to do it - why would they allow us to cherry-pick?

There are no sticking points at the moment, and there cannot be - because negotiations haven't yet begun. We all know that India have intimated that they envisage an increase in visas for their citizens, but that would not be too difficult to arrange if immigration control was fully restored - and we would still retain that responsible factor of 'control' - so you'll have to come up with a much better 'scaremongering' example than that!!


So you keep parroting - but, it will be the importer who pays it - NOT the UK taxpayer - but either way, the Treasury , and therefore the government have a greater income......on top of the multi-billion subsidy saving!!


Oh don't be so silly.......it is the basis of the vast majority of FTAs - and it doesn't involve an unnecessary additional tier of governance, but etc, etc - which you just ignore - because you cannot credibly provide justification.


I don't have to cite individuals deals - because when it comes to 'services', I only have to quote the EU Commissioner for the Internal Market, who, in the early 2000s, proposed the so-called Bolkestein directive - BECAUSE - 'protectionism continues to reign'. which would have greatly liberalized trade in services in the EU. However, this initiative failed - which is particularly unfortunate for the UK, considering that services account for a majority of UK economic output - and quite a few EU economies too I would imagine.


Yeah - just like the immediate 'crash'...... There is no credible basis for continuing such scaremongering - history showed that we can manange without the EU - and we will be able to establish deals with a vastly superior customer based market....i.e the one with which we already conduct most of our trade.....and without having to pay for that privilege!!

To the wider market - Japan is hardly the rest of the world.

So what? They may well do that - but we constantly have to face economic changes - the world doesn't stand still. The dockers! The mining industry!

Having access to the Customs Union's 'single market' is one thing - being a member of it is another. Many countries have access to this market - but members, 'or partial members' - i.e subject to certain elements of EU governance, even if only in certain areas, like Norway......but the UK voted for OUT - which means 'OUT - including EU control.
The ensuing trade deal , post activating Article 50, will decide the on-going trade basis - and it would be stupid for the UK to lose it's post - Brexit ability to negotiate it's own trade deals.......with 'services' in mind.
50 or so countries have FT access to the single market - without the 'on cost' - but clearly the UK will not get that, because it will encourage a few more of the EU minority countries that subsidise the rest to see sense too.
However - WTP trade would certainly be an improvement on the current situation - particularly with the UK's new found ability to make it's own trade deals!!

I said India EU negotiations.

There's no magic Brexit have your cake and eat it. If we want India to lower tariffs we've either got to accept lots of goods made far cheaper than we can and put loads of Brits out of work or give them some other concession and higher immigration is one they want.

Net Non EU migration is already higher than net EU migration. You are going from frying pan into even hotter fire.

Yes, I do keep saying it, because every time you try and pretend tariffs are good for us I love using the example of fuel duty to show how daft your arguments are. Keep giving me the opportunity, please.

Yes, if you keep saying that EU deals aren't always in the UK's best interests you ahve to cite one that isn't.

Services not only account for a majority of economic output but also a large proportion of our exports to the EU - "liberalized" or not.

An "immediate crash" (your words, no-one else's) was averted by the BoE's action in halving interest rates and pumping billions into private companies, growth still fell and we haven't even triggered article 50 yet.

WHERE? FFS! You risibly mentioned Japan.

But this is one economic "change" we only had to face because you voted for it.

No, it doesn't. It just means out of the EU; the official leave leaflet cited Iceland.

Edit: "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it"

Looks like Steve didn't read the Leave leaflet.

He presumably didn't realise he was voting for a situation where we go from being one of the (larger) decision makers in the EP & Council of Ministers for deciding on such EU & EEA laws to one where the other countries will make the decisions for us and then e-mail them to us so we can rubber-stamp them at Westminster.

Of course it does. If the UK remained in the EU Customs Union then it would lose the power to arrange it's own trade deals with other countries.


So what - the UK intends to further its global trading aspirations - did you not hear MAY???

Still talking tripe then?? The UK voted for it's trading independence, and regaining the ability to make its own legislation ..... the world is our Oyster!! You don't appear to realise that post Brexit - we won't be interested in EU laws - and why the hell should a legislative assembly be required to conduct trade?????

One doesn't need to read any leaflet to realise that!!

What part of:


don't you understand?

Being part of the EEA - which is what the above basically means - would mean the EU would set the laws and regulations and we like the existing non-EU EEA members must implement them even though we'll have no part whatsoever in the decision making used to set those laws that will directly effect us.

But, let me guess, we should ignore the view of the official Leave campaign, right?

Tough, the official Leave leaflet cited Iceland. They'er not in the EU, that's all you voted for.

She's even vaguer than you are about how we'll benefit.

And what part of Brexit, and the ability to conduct our own trade deals 'globally' do you not understand??


All you do is guess -and mostly get it wrong!! Did you really believe their claim of paying the EU £350 m / week......lol!!

Indeed because the UK would be out of the EU - so we can agree a trade deal with them.


.
Only idiots fail to see the benefits of the UK being out of the EU - and as a basic Bremainer, May clearly suffers from the same problems as you.....but unlike yourself - she could improve!

No, not if we're a member of the free trade area that extends from Icelanf to Turkey we can't. And that's what the official leave campaign promised.

Your problem is that you can't name one product or service we could export more of to any country than we can today inside the EU.

Nor can you identify any aspect of any existing deal that disadvantages the UK that might be improved on.

In short, you have nothing.

Meanwhile, the UK is now the world's seventh largest economy ...

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/20/...rgest-economy/

dia’s economy has reportedly overtaken the United Kingdom’s for the first time in over 100 years, now standing as the world’s sixth-largest economy by GDP after the United States, China, Japan, Germany, and France. The milestone is a symbol of India’s rapid economic growth and, conversely, the U.K.’s post-Brexit slump.

Economically, it’s been a banner year for India. In February, it surpassed China as the world’s fastest-growing economy. And in October, the International Monetary Fund predicted India would retain that title for the foreseeable future; its GDP is projected to increase by 7.6 percent through 2017.

“India may have a large population base but this is a big leap,” Kiren Rijiju, India’s minister of state for home affairs, said of the news earlier this week.

India’s former colonial ruler, the United Kingdom, is projected to grow by only 1.8 percent in 2016 and 1.1 percent in 2017. Since it voted to leave the European Union in June, which could entail leaving the EU’s lucrative common market, Britain’s economy and currency have struggled.

Really - well who exactly administers that grouping of FTA 'areas'? It isn't exactly a 'Customs Union' is it? Neither YOU or May know the basis of the UK/EU post Brexit trade deal - but even if there is no -deal, we will certainly be able to trade with that 'geographical' area - non - EU members currently do - and via a tariff free basis too!

And your, (or at least one of many), problems is that you cannot think. I have told you that there are countless products that will compete price-with with EU suppliers.......but, why don't you indicate some products that won't?? We already conduct the greater portion of our trade OUTSIDE of the EU - DESPITE the EU's advantageous tariff free position. The post -Brexit position will actually improve the 'competition' to the benefit of non-EU countries.


Read again what I have previously posted


Really?? Yet you haven't,as usual, been able to credibly, respond to my points - you merely repeat your previous nonsense.

Er, I think it is exactly a customs union:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro..._Customs_Union

Cars to Japan, for example. There's no benefit to the UK in leaving the EU that will help us sell more cars to Japan.

Your turn, what product or service can we sell more of to where outside the EU than in?

How?

Why, all you do is waffle, nothing special ever. You keep saying we can get better deals outside the EU but can never name one deal that can be improved upon. It's just bizarre.

I merely repeat my credible responses.

Indeed, I incorrectly responded on the basis that Iceland is not a member of the EU - with many Icelanders firmly against becoming members, but as you say, they are in the Customs Unions by dint of their EEA membership, and are therefore unable to negotiate their own Trade deals. However, a FTA could undoubtedly be agreed with the Customs Union - as Mexico and many other countries have - but it is extremely unlikely that the EU will , or can agree such a deal with the UK - as other EU subsidising countries may well decide to become escapees too!



Of course there is! We could agree a FT deal - or even apply lesser tariffs than the EU.


Cars to Japan.


Easy Hiawatha - see above.


Nah - as I have told you before - I leave the ‘waffling’ to experts in that field - of which you are the undoubted Master!! Your major problem is your abject lack of understanding of very simple concepts - as shown by your utter failure to even realise the freedom gained by any Country that escapes from the grasp of the EU Soviet Politburo….and the fact that they then revert to again being a sovereign country, able to negotiate trade deals at will , with any non-Customs Union country that is willing to negotiate a mutually beneficial trading arrangement - which far outweighs the mainly limpet country alliance of ‘27’.
FT deals outside of the Political Union will not be politburo controlled, will not require huge subsidies, nor loss of sovereign control and legislative authority - so will be vastly superior…..but of course only non-brainwashed people , who have retained the power of reasoning and have at least a modicum of common sense realise that.
Maybe, because you are clearly not a member of that ‘club’, you have failed to realise that your above question has already been answered - several times!! For eg - India ......or the USA, either one would provide a bigger customer base than the EU - and, are not in economic decline!
Now you tell me what advantage does membership of the EU confer that cannot be provided, without the very high related EU membership costs, by a straight forward FTA.
After all - trade is the spring board of economic growth.

Your spelling is poor today - you missed the 'in' that should have been inserted before 'credible'.............now THAT, really is BIZARRE - ( in other words - normal for you).

All of which is evading the point that the official leave campaign promised:

"There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it"

Er, us applying lesser tariffs won't help us sell more cars to Japan. All that will do is help them make fewer cars here and more cars in Japan instead. So what do you think will help us sell more cars to Japan and how?

You've yet to even show we're leaving the customs union.

The EU's not in economic decline. We already export to India and the US. they already provide that customer base. You're not offering anything new for the inhibited trade with our biggest market.

Standardisation. No customs. No Certificates of Origin.

It's incredible that I have to point out these things to you, yes, that I keep having to ask for one single example of a product or service we can sell more of to any country.

So what .....many sovereign countries are part of it, as they have 'free trade with it' - and the Leave campaign, figured that as the EU will naturally lose more 'trade' than the EU, they would be inclined to extend free trade terms to the the UP post Brexit. They were probably as wrong as those Leavers who claimed that there would be an immediate economic crisis in the event of a vote for Brexit - but we really won't know until after the event will we?

Absolute rubbish - unless you can support your stupid claim with proof that the ONLY reason they established manufacturing facilities in the UK was BECAUSE the UK was in the EU.

Don't have to - anyone with sense would know that being a member of the customs union would prevent the UK establishing it's own trade deals......and guess what , approaches from other countries have already been made......but perhaps you know something which clearly, nobody else knows!


Really - perhaps you should parrot that to the Euro user countries, many of whom have experienced much misery and hardship because their government started to use a currency that THEY couldn't control.......Italy and Greece spring to mind!!


Is that the best you can up with??? We clearly do then need another Parliament don't we????????????

You've already been told .....several times - but it is even more incredible that even you cannot see that!!

It's what most Brexiters voted for anyway.

And the EU will break up soon enough regardless of what we do.

No, Korea have free trade with it but are not part of it. Leave promised we'd be part of it, not just [free] trade with it.

Not necessarily a distinction that's immediately obvious and you may have thought you vote for free trade with it, but you didn't. That's why referenda are a bad idea.

I didn't say "only" reason, but it was certainly the main reason, they'd had "voluntary" import quotas and similarly high tariffs to today up until then.

All I know is what was on the official leave leaflet that you voted for, that we will be a PART OF the free trade area from Iceland to Turkey.

Greece experienced hardship because they lied to get in and spent money they weren't earning.

Don't forget the previous mantra of the right that Gordon Brown was an idiot because the UK suffered worse from the downturn than the EU did.

Just because you have no idea of the implications isn't my fault.

No, you've come up with NOTHING specific.

Again.

Cue another 10 pages of you pretending you have without being able to repeat it.

Any country which engages in FT with a group of countries that have formed an alliance is clearly 'part' of it - in as much that they all conduct free trade, to some extent, with each other. The difference is that some are not members of it, so are not involved in the 'governance' of the alliance.
Remain said a Brexit vote would create immediate economic problems for the UK.......

People knew exactly what they were voting for - it is defined in the Lisbon Treaty. What isn't defined is the basis of continuing TRADE between the leaving country, and the EU - so it is just more nonsense from you when you claim that I, or anyone else voted with the expectation of obtaining a free trade agreement post Brexit - in fact I at least, have often claimed thai is unlikely. However, it doesn't take an Einstein to realise that Brexit means regaining our own legislative authority - and once again being able to look after our own affairs.

You didn't HAVE, to have claimed it. Your silly argument was predicated on it. However, in choosing the UK to site their factories in the UK, instead of the many available alternatives, clearly wasn't the only factor.

. And we may still might be ....... even if I do believe that to be unlikely...... but it could well be via lower than WTO tariffs.


Nonsense - their hardship was coupled to the stupid implementation of a common currency being shared by disparate economies...a very premature step towards federalisation. There are obviously additional factors in play - but the principal problem was that of the inappropriate common currency adoption.


Blair was a bigger idiot than Brown - at least Brown had the sense to refuse to adopt the euro - against the wishes of Blair.

Nah - you are the clueless one - as you keep demonstrating - for example, your following lie ..............

No, you've come up with NOTHING specific.

Again.

The fact that you are patently abject at comprehension, which we have debated at great length in the past, enforces the fact that such an act would be pointless - you still wouldn't see sense even if the FACTS were supported by 100 pages.
Unfortunately, you are way beyond redemption!!