Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

P 69023

I think the Crazy Gang would be more appropriate!

Will Brexit hurt trade?
By: Simon Wilson
21/02/2016

The EU referendum will be a major talking point this year. But what are the facts? In the first of a series of briefings, Simon Wilson looks at the potential impact on trade with the EU.

What’s the trade case against Brexit?

If it ain’t bust, don’t fix it.

Britain’s trade with European Union (EU) nations has risen greatly since 1973 – from about 30% of UK exports to about 45% now – boosted by lower trade barriers and new export opportunities. Quantifying the boost that comes directly from EU membership is hard: it’s natural that much of our trade is done with our neighbours, and we can’t be sure what might have happened had the UK never joined.

But analysts from the Centre for European Reform think tank have concluded that Britain’s trade with the rest of the EU is 55% greater than it would have been if it were outside the club.

Furthermore, say the “Stay” camp, Brexit would leave firms still spending large sums to comply with EU rules so as to access the single market. Regulatory divergence would grow over time, adding to costs, affecting volumes and the UK’s place in the supply chain.

What are the potential scenarios?

Talk of post-Brexit options often focuses on Norway, or the Turkish and Swiss examples. Norway, as a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), has access to the single market, but must adopt EU standards and regulations while having no influence over formulating them. This model doesn’t address the political causes of Brexit and is unattractive and unlikely.

Similarly, a Turkish-style customs union would be a poor post-Brexit compromise.

A Swiss-style model, where the UK negotiates a series of bilateral accords governing access to the single market in specific sectors, would be more palatable, but it’s not clear it would be acceptable to the EU.

That leaves the most plausible post-Brexit deal: a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (FTA – absent which the relationship would be governed by existing World Trade Organisation – WTO – rules).

Why would the EU agree?

The Stay camp argue that Brussels is unlikely to come to a favourable deal with a rich Western country that had voluntarily chosen to leave. But many other analysts, such as Capital Economics’ Roger Bootle, argue that Britain would readily be able to negotiate a free-trade deal because it would be in the overwhelming interests of both parties to do so.

The UK runs a big trade deficit (in goods, not services) with the EU – ie, they sell us far more than we sell them.

So if the EU erected punitive trade barriers on a post-exit UK (and bear in mind that under WTO rules, it is hard to apply a trade barrier where one didn’t previously exist), the EU would lose more in export earnings than Britain. In other words, even if the EU were angry about Brexit, it wouldn’t actually start self-harming. Yet it might not be that simple.

Why not?

Because the trading relationship is unbalanced and unevenly spread. First, the EU buys around 45% of British exports (down from 55% in 2000), whereas the UK accounts for 16% of the EU’s (according to an in-depth analysis by the NIESR think tank’s Jonathan Portes; other sources put the figure at 10%). This means the UK wouldn’t have an especially strong hand in post-exit talks.

Second, half of the EU’s trade surplus with the UK is accounted for by Germany and the Netherlands. Most of the 27 member states don’t have substantial surpluses in trade with us, and plenty have deficits. That could make things tricky, as any deal with the UK would require the assent of all 27.

But commercial interests would likely prevail – a post-exit UK would still be the EU’s biggest export market, and it is hard to envisage a big German exporter allowing Brexit to disrupt trade for long. And it would hardly be a disaster if no formal trade deal were in place. Japan, China, India and the US lack any FTA with the EU and manage to export to it quite easily.

Which sectors would be most affected?

According to the Open Europe think tank, the 35% of the UK’s goods exports to the EU that could be subject to high external tariffs post-exit (above 4%) – such as automotive, chemicals and foods – as well as the financial services sector, would be particularly prone to initial disruption, with potential knock-on effects on foreign direct investment.

However, the same analysis also predicts that preferential trade deals covering these goods sectors are “highly likely”. When it comes to services, and financial services in particular, the report concludes that guaranteeing seamless access to EU markets will be harder, not least because the UK has a trade surplus in services with the EU.

The argument of the “Brexiteers” is that some short-term disruption is worth it in pursuit of the potential long-term gains from (a) lighter and more tailored regulation (not possible under EU membership) and (b) the freedom to negotiate new trade deals with the rest of the world. We’ll move onto this subject – the question of the UK’s trade with the rest of the world – in the next briefing.

Trade deficit and exports: the figures

According to the most recent Office for National Statistics data, Britain’s trade deficit with EU countries rose to an all time high of £89bn last year (out of a total deficit of £125bn), as we bought French wine, German cars, Spanish vegetables and Italian clothes, but economically weaker EU countries bought less from us.

Exports of British goods to the EU fell 8% to a six-year low of £134bn last year (£31bn less than in 2011 when the eurozone debt crisis hit hardest). Exports to non-EU countries edged up 2% to £151bn, meaning they accounted for 53% of overseas sales by British companies.

EDIT: For a bit more info' on our Trade Deficit with the World and with the EU, check out: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35530340

REFERENDUM NEWS
IDS comes out with an asinine bit of scaremongering ..... britain will be more vulnerable to paris-type terrorist attack if vote is to remain within eu .... what a load of absolute twaddle

DC says, quite rightly actually, that people are deluding themselves if they think that voting for "out" will enable the doors to be slammed on eu immigration - NOT if we want to stay a significant trading partner with eu; check other countries like norway for confirmation

BORIS will campaign for "out" .... this will certainly set the cat among the pigeons, and the markets won't like it at all

Boris's view may be clear around 10:00pm this evening when his Telegraph column is published.

REFERENDUM NEWS
an excellent article below from today's guardian ......


The European Union has missed an important opportunity for reforms that could have benefited all its member states and their citizens.

As a result, the prime minister has returned with a threadbare deal that has highlighted our powerlessness to effect institutional change. If this is the very best that can be grudgingly conceded when EU leaders express concern at the prospect of a British exit, what hope is there of any meaningful reform in the future?

Come the referendum in June, the deal will be a distant memory and unlikely to influence decision-making so much as gut reaction and weighing the balance of individual and national interest. I expect that those campaigning for us to remain in the EU will win the day if they can persuade people that doing so is the only way to guarantee security and prosperity. They will not win because people have any love for the institution itself.

Referendums have a tendency to deliver the status quo. The point needs to be made, however, that neither choice delivers the status quo because, like it or not, within a decade our relationship with the EU will look radically different, whatever the outcome. Last week’s deal has underlined the reality that our Eurozone partners are continuing their separate journey towards full political and monetary union. We will inevitably be bound by and disadvantaged by the decisions they make in their own interest.

The time has come for us to frame a new independent relationship as good neighbours rather than remain a discontented junior partner picking up the bills but with no power to influence the rules of the club.

The costs go far beyond our considerable net financial contribution, annually variable but between £8.5bn and £10.5bn over the past three years. The Common Fisheries Policy has been disastrous both for fish stocks and for our once thriving industry. Nearly a quarter of our quota is now landed overseas by a single Dutch trawler and policy has been mishandled for decades with no accountability to parliament. There is a tendency to think of EU regulations and the European Court of Justice as benign, but interference with decisions like minimum unit pricing in Scotland show the power of big business interests to win out over important public health protections.

The concern about the level of migration is genuine and could have been addressed but the EU has failed to take the opportunity for measured and sensible reforms to benefits. The emergency brake is cosmetic, merely adding rafts of bureaucratic complexity with no meaningful impact on migration.

For all the dire warnings from Project Fear, I simply do not believe that co-operation on issues as important as trade, security, defence and science would collapse in the event of a vote to leave. No possible good would come for either the EU or Britain in an acrimonious separation.

We would set out on a new path as the world’s fifth largest economy, confident, outward looking, keen to maintain close co-operation with our European allies and open for business. We would regain control over our own laws and borders and be free to negotiate our own trade deals with emerging markets.

There would undoubtedly be turbulence in the short term but we should balance that against the long-term risks of remaining bound to an institution that we will never learn to love.

I am always struck by the scale of our disengagement from the EU. When I ask at public meetings, few people can name a single one of the MEPs; fewer still have ever contacted one. It is hard to see why they would bother, given the democratic deficit at the heart of the institution.

In June, we face tying ourselves in for the long term to be increasingly governed by a body that few understand or trust and whose powerful commissioners we cannot vote from office. For anyone concerned about issues such as TTIP or the “tampon tax”, the reality is that these are the domain of the unelected and unaccountable in Brussels and the list will only get longer.

In the run-up to the referendum, the most compelling request I hear is for more information and the opportunity to debate the issues without the shouting or sneering. People want clear, unbiased information from trusted independent sources.

Commentators should also set out their own voting intention so that their messages can be judged accordingly. We should not shy away from any aspect of this debate but the public do not want a campaign that is dominated either by immigration or by Project Fear.

My vote will count for no more than anyone else’s but, for what it’s worth, I am optimistic for our future, I believe the balance of our national interest now lies outside the EU and I will be voting to leave.

Sarah Wollaston is Conservative MP for Totnes

You must mean the Observer as the Guardian does not come out on a Sunday?

It is the same web site.

Link?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/21/threadbare-deal-on-europe-refrendum

As you can see, it says Guardian and Sunday!

Observer is just Guardian on Sunday. Same journalists.

no stan, i mean the guardian as appears on my phone every morning including today!
as such, i don't get a link though haze has kindly provided same

Boris turns Dave down, he is for exit.

Ah the online stuff, sorry I meant the hard copy thanks chaps.

Why is the problem for me, Dave must have offered him a big one?

Because Johnson wants to be PM Max.. gaud help us if that ever happens.

Boris's calculation is that if he supports the in side then he alienates most of his party. They will then reject him in a vote for leader when the parliamentary party votes to reduce the candidates to just two. I doubt that he believes in leaving. He has made a safe political choice.

Boris's view in tomorrow's Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12167643/Boris-Johnson-there-is-only-one-way-to-get-the-change-we-want-vote-to-leave-the-EU.html

Can you copy and paste it Haystack?

It's behind a paywall.

Get in there Boris !!

Got it, it's a long one..


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12167643/Boris-Johnson-there-is-only-one-way-to-get-the-change-we-want-vote-to-leave-the-EU.html