Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Zanza]

I was reading a long document that said if Britain left and got no deal at all (not even a FTA) then they'd be subject to WTO rules.

The UK would be a WTO member, but unlike all other WTO members except Hong Kong, Singapore and Macau (which deliberately adopted that policy) it would start without any country-specific committments in the WTO as those pertain to the EU customs union. It would have to go with the most favor nation status.

An exit from the EU, for example, would cause the UK to lose the preferential access to other markets covered by 36 trade agreements with 58 countries negotiated by the EU. As a result, to remain compliant with WTO rules the UK would have to impose higher "most favoured nation" tariffs on imports from those 58 countries, while they would have to levy their own surcharges on British exports, Mr Azevêdo said.

The only other option available to the UK would be removing all barriers for all WTO members, effectively turning its economy into a duty-free one like Singapore and lifting the protections politically sensitive domestic industries enjoy under the EU.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Rational heads like Merkel's aren't going to want to have no deal at all with Britain.

I am not really sure what the international image of Merkel is these days. But it helps to consider that she ultimately oversaw the last time the EU reacted to a referendum. That was when the Greeks got really harsh terms after voting "No" to another deal with the EU. She is rational, but she is also really cold in her political considerations.

Greece was a cancer holding its hand out for money. Merkel has a business sense, it may make European hawks who want to "hurt Britain" happy to try and wall off Britain from the European markets but it's not good for business, for anyone. Relatively low trade barriers and a normalized trade relationship are the only real possible outcomes.

Do you seriously believe Britain and the EU are going to have massive tariffs such that it essentially destroys trade between them? That just seems fanciful to me. Britain is not going to face higher trade barriers than the United States does.

[Valmy]

I was reading a long document that said if Britain left and got no deal at all (not even a FTA) then they'd be subject to WTO rules.

The UK would be a WTO member, but unlike all other WTO members except Hong Kong, Singapore and Macau (which deliberately adopted that policy) it would start without any country-specific committments in the WTO as those pertain to the EU customs union. It would have to go with the most favor nation status.

An exit from the EU, for example, would cause the UK to lose the preferential access to other markets covered by 36 trade agreements with 58 countries negotiated by the EU. As a result, to remain compliant with WTO rules the UK would have to impose higher "most favoured nation" tariffs on imports from those 58 countries, while they would have to levy their own surcharges on British exports, Mr Azevêdo said.

The only other option available to the UK would be removing all barriers for all WTO members, effectively turning its economy into a duty-free one like Singapore and lifting the protections politically sensitive domestic industries enjoy under the EU.

I am sure all this was carefully and responsibly explained to the British people during the referendum campaign. They knowingly agreed to all the consequences. Time to move forward.

[Valmy]

Greece was a cancer holding its hand out for money. Merkel has a business sense, it may make European hawks who want to "hurt Britain" happy to try and wall off Britain from the European markets but it's not good for business, for anyone. Relatively low trade barriers and a normalized trade relationship are the only real possible outcomes.

Do you seriously believe Britain and the EU are going to have massive tariffs such that it essentially destroys trade between them? That just seems fanciful to me. Britain is not going to face higher trade barriers than the United States does.

I am sure the EU will negotiate a treaty that is as good for the EU as possible. They apparently have 600 experienced trade technocrats.

[OttoVonBismarck]

From a political perspective I actually think most pro-EU European leaders are probably happy to see Britain go. Britain was the largest impediment to the dreams of a European Federation, to be honest. I think the only reason they aren't more or less celebrating and even making it easy for Britain to leave is they want to make sure none of the peripheral states break off.

[Valmy]

From a political perspective I actually think most pro-EU European leaders are probably happy to see Britain go. Britain was the largest impediment to the dreams of a European Federation, to be honest. I think the only reason they aren't more or less celebrating and even making it easy for Britain to leave is they want to make sure none of the peripheral states break off.

Britain was a big leader of the Euroskeptics. Them being gone might make it more stable. Might. It doesn't sound like the common people are ready to have their 'We Love the EU' parades these days.

[Zanza]

Do you seriously believe Britain and the EU are going to have massive tariffs such that it essentially destroys trade between them? That just seems fanciful to me. Britain is not going to face higher trade barriers than the United States does.

No, but I also don't think that Britain will get a much better deal than the USA. Which is not bad, but it's nowhere near what they got now.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think Britain either ends up like Norway or doesn't leave at all.

I think if the Conservatives win a general behind a Leave Tory, they'll probably sell Norway status as a "necessity" because the two year window of Article 50 makes it damn near impossible to negotiate a complex, new, or novel arrangement of any kind. Even getting to Norway status in the two year window won't be easy. America takes 4-5 years or longer on trade deals that are far less complex than Brexit, and has far more resources and skilled technocrats than Britain.

So Britain ends up as Norway, the populist Leave voters are told it's a practical necessity "for now" because the Article 50 window just doesn't provide enough time to not leave Britain in a "gap" on relations with Europe that would be devastating. The "for now" is quickly never mentioned again and that becomes the new status quo forever. UKIP probably continues to rage about it, but with true exit from the EU I think they lose a lot of wind from their sails.

This option I think also makes it very easy for Britain to rejoin down the road, as it'll maintain synchronized with Europe.

[OttoVonBismarck]

And I still think ReverseBrexit is a pretty damn strong possibility.

[Valmy]

I see where you are coming from Otto but it would just be too destabilizing for that kind of wimping out. The British government set itself up for disaster with this referendum and I don't see how they can legitimately claim to be a democratic country if they do not leave the EU in a meaningful way.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I see where you are coming from Otto but it would just be too destabilizing for that kind of wimping out. The British government set itself up for disaster with this referendum and I don't see how they can legitimately claim to be a democratic country if they do not leave the EU in a meaningful way.

Leaving is leaving, Leave themselves admit they have no plan for leaving, and none was promised in the referendum. Norway status would 100% comply with the referendum.

[Sheilbh]

Guardian reporting that anti-Corbyn rebels are looking into legal ownership of the 'Labour Party' name.

Also Tom Watson the deputy leader has said Corbyn has to go but he won't. Rumours Corbyn wants a way out but is being told 'no surrender/pasaran' by his team.

This is really distressing watching a great historic party like this

[Admiral Yi]

Rumours Corbyn wants a way out

Take the black.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Rumours Corbyn wants a way out

Take the black.

not final enough. Prepare the hemlock!

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'd look at it like this, 48% voted to stay. If there's no less than 3% of voters that voted for Leave, who would have been fine with a Norway status, then a majority of the country can be said to favor Norway status.

I think the idea that the anti-immigration Leave vote is a majority of the country isn't accurate, Leave was a coalition of differing ideas and were not unified on that one. Even if they were 80/20 in favor of harsh immigration policies a majority of the country, still isn't.