The view from Singapore

http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/...n-crash-brexit


The last sentence is very telling

Everyday we hear constant speculation on how Brexit will work and endless scenarios about the single market, customs union and how Britain will pay a very high price in trade negotiations. How about we fill our news bulletins and news media with how Brexit will affect those in the EU with most to lose by imposing trade tarrifs by imposing the same tarrifs on German cars or French or Spanish food and drink. Let's concentrate in examining the real effect of trade barriers being put up by the EU. One of the best interviews given on the subsject of trade was by the Australian trade minister where he said it had taken 10 years of negotiation with the EU and still not having the best deal in place where it took under 1 year to overcome the stumbling block with the US, sugar. Once that was sorted everything moved on. IT took Canada 7 years and even then it almoist collapsed because of one small region of Belguim voting against but eventually were given concessions to change their mind. What about all the other countries and regions that did not receive concessions to agree the deal? Should they have turned round and said well if this small region in Belguim can hold the EU to account then we should. Actually this has been the case all along with the EU.

The EU is the problem, not the countries or rather the people who belong to it. If we had sensible trade agreements inside and outside of the EU in a global trading environment and the EU concentrated on good legislation that protected workers rights, the environment, infrastructure, aid and security with all countries working together on a common cause that affects all of us there would be no need to question the EU. However it doesn't do that it puts up trade barriers to African countries that don't want charity but want to produce and sell their goods to Europe.

The EU as it stands is unbalanced where stronger economies dominate the poorer economies which makes the Eurozone and the euro unfit for purpose. Freedom of movement is uncontrolled and should have been addressed long before it will be in an unsavoury manner by extreme right wing sections of society. Most of the people here or elsewhere don't have a problem with immigration, it is the levels and how in certain areas there is lack of financial support and services to accomodate the numbers. There are areas where without immigration services such as the NHS and agriculture would collapse and would lead to devastating consequences for health and our ecomomy.

It is all very well saying we should train more nurses and docotors but that horse has bolted, we should have implemented better training, better funding and above all better management of our key services decades ago. It will take decades to replace what we have now if we suddenly stop immigration for these vital services.

The whole debate surrounding the EU is so unbalanced it is no wonder we got the result we did. It is too easy to point blame and separate rich areas from poor areas, better educated from less better educated. If we addressed the core problems we would not be having a referendum at all and it is as much a problem for the other 450 million in the EU as it is here.

It is, however, the EU we have. Not the one in the rose tinted dreams of May, the 3 buffoons, Farage or any of the Brexit delusionists.

It will be bloody. They will not be bending. They have already written off the impact on trade. Merkel got rousing applause from an audience of German industrialists when she said the UK would get no free access without accepting FOM.

It is not "as much a problem for the other 450M people in the EU". The majority do not share the UK's phobia.

I predict the outcome as seen from Singapore is exactly what will happen. It will be massively damaging to the economy, and there will be screams of anguish from business as it either shrinks or emigrates. And from the people it employs. And it will be the fault of the gullible who swallowed this experiment, who will be doing their level best to shift the blame onto the EU, but ultimately will have nowhere to hide.

No amount of handwringing will change this. We are where we are, with a PM hell bent on driving it as hard as she can.

I thought hard Brexit is no deal, is the train crash?

In English?

I thought hard Brexit was no deal can be reached with the EU. That is not a organized departure that's unresolvable disagreement.
I though soft Brexit was an organized amicable departure with agreements on the UK EU future relationship..

Ah, ok I understand.

Yes, hard Brexit would be a train crash, so in reality there are 2 outcomes, not 3.

Essence is still correct.

[quote=trevgo;84934953]It is, however, the EU we have. Not the one in the rose tinted dreams of May, the 3 buffoons, Farage or any of the Brexit delusionists.


What do you think would be ther reaction if Britain imposed the same tarrifs on German manufacturers as they seem to want to do to Britain? This is a basic question that isn't being answered or indeed being asked as determinedly as others are questioning Britains stance. German manufacturers have an awful lot more to lose through tarrifs than Britain does.

With regard to FOM that is a problem that the whole of the EU has to deal with as it is unsustainable in it's present form especially with such a refugee crisis the world and especially Europe is facing. It isn't isloated to Britain, the problem is that BRitain is and will be a much more attractive place for thise seeking FOM because our wages will be rising much faster and will be a major draw for eastern European countries and indeed Southern Europeans.

We should allow immigration but it has to be controlled, a country whether it is Britain or elsewhere need controls that allow it to manage immigration and fund it so that it doesn't cause too much financial pressure or a burden on our services. That is entirely different to the attitude of some right wing extremeist views that often make the headlines. We need immigration and we need it at specific times of the year and for some importnat services such as the NHS. It will take a decade or even longer to address the shortage Britain has in these areas because we have not addressed training for decades.



The phobia exists because we have a media that advances fears and problems that they know cannot be solved but instead blame immigration. As I keep pointing out if we had addressed the areas of concern we have with the NHS and GP surgeries, schools and trained and paid nurses, doctors, techers in the numbers that were required to fill these positions we would not have required to fill around 30% of the positions with people from overseas. However that also leads to another problem, the reason people come in the first place. There is a huge gap in equality and poverty all across eastern Europe and Asian countries that it leaves those with no choice but to seek a better life here and elsewhere in Northern Europe. We have an unbalanced world and the EU doen't help by putting up trade barriers and having it dominated by France, Germany and at present the UK.



One of the major concerns from the fall out of Brexit is indeed our own fault. Britain and America abandoned their manufacturing base whilst Germany, China, India and others invested. It is ironic that two of the worlds biggest manufacturing bases, the US and Britain languish so low in the league table. Britain turned it's back on manufacturing and concentrated on a financial services industry. Look at the difference between Germany and Britain today. The US and Britain and some others took route of using cheap labour in India, China and Asia to supply our goods, they cared not about those who were making the goods only the corporations building large profits that weren't even retained in their own countries but instead found a home in offshore facilities.

Some will point out to the old problems of our failed car industry but just look at what could have happened with good management and investment. One only has to look at Nissan and BMW to see what could have happened. How much stronger would Britain have been had we not abandoned manufacturing, paid out billions in unemployment benefit and welfare payments but instead invested that money in jobs and chosen the best management?


Yes there is a great deal of handwringing but mainly from the people who have either made the mistakes or the people who have allowed it to happen.

It's not a "view from Singapore". It is an opinion piece by Gideon Rachman of the FT.

https://www.ft.com/comment/columnists/gideonrachman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_Rachman
[ which says "Rachman is noted for advocating a looser, non-federal European Union." ]
https://twitter.com/gideonrachman

Except it isnt the "View from Singapore"

Rachman writes for the Financial Times which is as pro remain as you are likely to get.

edit:
damn beaten by wibble.

Normally that's extra but we have a special on this week



On the other hand it's reassuring to see I'm not the only one who suffers from slow typing!

That's not how it works.

The EU is a trade bloc with a customs union and single market.
Members (via EU or EFTA) have free trade (free movement of goods, services, capital & labour).
Non-members can remove some of the obstacles (tariffs, customs taxes, quotas, etc) on goods by being in a customs union with the EU (EUCU, for countries/states on the European continent), or they can remove some/most traiffs on goods and also some (but certainly not all) barriers to services via a bilateral FTA.

Free movement of financial services & capital (banking passport etc) is for EU/EEA/EFTA members only.

If no FTA deal can be agreed, then the default is to fall back to WTO rules.

Under WTO rules, single countries are not obliged to impose import tariffs on any goods.
But if we do impose them, then we have to apply the same MFN tariff to all other countries (that don't have an FTA with us) for the same goods.

This means we would not be able to operate like Singapore under a unilateral free trade policy.
If we impose WTO tariffs on the EU, then we have to impose the same ones on other countries.
If we don't, then we can't impose them on the EU either.

As the EU is a trade bloc / customs union / single market (aka glorified protection racket), import tariffs, taxes & quotas are imposed by default on all non-members working under WTO rules.

It's not a matter of them wanting or not wanting to impose them, they ARE imposed by default.

All trade blocs (of which there are many) work via the same or similar principles.

The only way to remove them (for some/most goods and maybe some services) would be via an FTA agreement.... which could take many years to be ratified, if ever, after we have completed the initial 2 year exit deal.


Two countries agreeing to a bilateral FTA (eg. USA & Australia) is always going to be a much easier/faster process than a single country agreeing to a bilateral FTA with a 27-member trade bloc.


This is the problem facing the UK.

We have a number of different choices.....

1) Look for a unique UK-EU FTA deal, of the type that's never been done before - aka the "have our cake and eat it" method.

Likelihood of happening - bleak.

Reason: Why would the EU give a better deal to a non-member than to any of its members?
What would be the point of any other countries staying in the EU if they can get a better deal outside it?

2) Look for a Switzerland style EFTA deal, aka soft brexit

Separate bilateral FTA, keeps us in the single market but not in customs union, keeps us out of CAP & CFP (agriculture and fishing), lets us make our own separate FTAs with other non-EEA countries, maybe lets us impose an emergency brake on EU free movement of labour, still requires us to pay a (lesser) fee...

This could even be a temporary transitional solution whilst we establish our own separate FTAs over the coming years.

Likelihood - more likely than #1, but requires a lot of optimism...

3) Norway/Iceland style EFTA deal - similar to above, but more restrictive (i.e. bound by EU vs EFTA rules as opposed to a separate bilateral FTA)

Likelihood: 50/50

4) Canada style FTA deal
Will remove some/most barriers (tariffs, taxes, quotas) on goods and some services, but not all, and won't include financial services, capital, and banking passport (~75% of our exports to EU are in services) - would require free movement via visa-free access, with free movement of labour negotiable.....

Likelihood - high, but could take many years to complete/ratify

5) Customs Union deal (Turkey, San Marino, Monaco, Andorra)
Although it would remove traiffs on goods, it won't cover services/capital, and would mean we have to abide by EU/EEA trade rules and wouldn't be allowed to make our own separate FTAs.
This would be disastrous for the UK outside of the EU.
Likelihood - god forbid.

6) WTO rules, aka hard brexit
We will probably fall back to this after the initial 2 year exit deal is done.
Outcome - potential tragedy. We shall see.....

At least the author isn't in property development/estate management.

But a bigger issue may be looming, ie suggestions that the US will impose an import tax as a pseudo-VAT

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-1...-talking-about

Put simply, the proposal would tax US imports at the corporate income tax rate, while exempting income earned from exports from any taxation. The reform would closely mirror tax border adjustments in economies with consumption-based VAT tax systems. If enacted, the plan will likely be extremely bullish for the US dollar. What’s more, it would have a transformational impact on the US trade relationship with the rest of the world.

So potential harm to EU exports to the US, made worse if EU politicians decide that punishing the UK is more important than protecting their state's economy.

And in other news, looks like Italy's heading for the door as well..

I know exactly how it works. My point was in response to a post stating that German manufacturers applauded Merkel in a speech regarding Brexit. Whether it is Germany or the entire EU bloc, if tarrifs are imposed on Britain then they have to expect that tarrifs will be imposed on EU goods. Virtually every news bulletin, every media outlet, almost every politician is looking at Brexit and especially trade from Britain's point of view and not placing more emphassis on questioning the EU members on the effect trade arrangements would have on them.

However my other points and more relevant to the overall EU position is that the EU is unbalanced and there is a complete disconnect between what is good for Northern Europe which included Britain but especially Germany and Southern Europe and the Eastern European countries. The EU is unbalanced as it stands on a number of areas, currency, wages, manufacturing, freedom of movement, many issues that if they had been addressed long before now we would have had no need for referendums and growing dissent across Europe.

I was wondering what today's repetitious Brexit tale of woe from the OP would be.

Yes, I know what you meant.

But I pointed out that it's not a case of "if tariifs are imposed by the EU", they ARE imposed by default.
The likelihood of any FTA deal (to remove said default tariffs) being ratified within the 2 year exit period are bleak.

It would actually be more detrimental to us if we imposed import tariffs on EU goods.
We aren't obliged to impose any tariffs on imports under WTO rules.
But said tariffs would hit our retailers and consumers/customers - and would also mean that we'd need to impose the same tariffs on all other countries without an FTA deal with us.

Would a 10% price increase stop UK customers from still buying BMW & Mercedes if they can't get them from anywhere else?

Would a 20% tariff on our agricultural exports to the EU make UK farm produce less competitive?

No-one wants tariffs, but the WTO system will impose them on our exports into the EU by default.

This is the whole point of being in a protectionist trade bloc with your neighbours.
Inside you're protected, outside you're not.




Yes, absolutely

Heavily weighted view form a hard-line remainer, well worth ignoring..... Next.

I do understand your first reply and I do understand the consequences of the options you have articulated exceptionally well I might add. However I think our media should be held to account before and after the referendum for not finding a way to forensically examine and portray in laymans terms the implications of staying or leaving the UK and that goes for advantages as much as disadvantages of both staying and leaving.

We elect our politicians to make decisions on behalf of those who are less able to understand and grasp issues. Primarily they are supposed to be well educated balanced and act in the best interests of the electorate they represent. We don't have that, not every MP can be blamed but many, too many are career politicians who care more about what happens in their Westminster bubble than what happens outside it. The media unfortunately becomes part of this little bubble and has it's own selfish values and portray it's own bias. It condemns immigration mostly in a nasty unforgiving way but does not want to linger on the fact that we are dependent on immigration to help run our services grow our economy we need control not condemnation.

On the Article 50 divorce proceedings, the EU will stand firm. It's in their political interest to do so. Sticking points are likely to be the outstanding budget amounts and the acquired rights of UK citizens living in the EU. With common sense, purpose and goodwill, a withdrawal treaty will be agreed. Theresa May has still not decided if there will be a UK parliamentary vote on the agreement. Although as an MEP, Nigel Farage will have a vote in the EU parliament on the withdrawal treaty.

The EU will want to negotiate with Mrs May and her government on a free trade agreement or continued UK membership of the Customs Union. But Mrs May's problems will be not with the EU: her problems will be her own Tory backbenchers and many 'leave' voters.

In advance of the UK's individual membership of the WTO, Liam Fox has been reportedly throwing cocktails party at the Geneva HQ of the WTO. Leaving David Davis to do the dirty work of dealing with the EU.

The sooner Mrs May confirms that the UK is leaving Single Market, the sooner we can all start preparing. She needs to put this painful announcement behind her.

I voted remain but I would say this, believe in your country and believe we can make it work no matter what the deal. Speculating day after day about the different types of deal is literally not helping anyone.

It is truly sad , still if it keeps him off the streets and away from the public then it's not all bad I suppose!

From Theresa May, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson & David Davies with their individual ideas of what Brexit means, as demonstrated yesterday when the Prime Minister could not confirm if she agreed with her Transexit Minister as to whether our democratically elected sovereign Parliament will be kept informed of the negotiations.

Just believe and the Brexit fairies will magic up a land of milk and honey.

A good definition of a 'buffoon', is someone who deludes him/herself by foolishly convincng themselves that he/she has a magic crystalball!!

While much of what you say is sensible - you ruined your post with that risible comment highlighted in BIB.

You are using a 'typical' baseless comment made by 'Remainers', who, lacking credibility in making a case for a requirement to join a 'Political Union' in order to benefit from trade, claim that criticism of UNCONTROLLED migration is racist and/or xenophobic.

There is NOTHING either racist OR xenophobic about controlling immigration - it is a prime responsibily of ALL governments.........which is why the vast majority of countries duly exercise such control.

Despite the high historical immigration record of the UK, the question of whether or not the UK can sustain the recent rate of immigration is certainly open to sensible debate - but opposite sides of that argument should accept, (as you correctly point out), that immigration should be 'controlled', such that immigrants are either what the UK actually needs, or are genuine refugees.

And although, like many countries, we unfortunately have more than our fair share of racists, and xenophic elements in our society, such accusations are way off the mark when criticising individuals or organisations that condemn the lack of sensible control that is associated with EU internal migration.