Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

WTO - Brexit could cost the UK 5.6 billion pounds a year in extra duties

30 replies

nearlyhellokitty · 07/06/2016 16:42

Just saw this... speech by the WTO Director-General Roberto Azevêdo explaining how complicated this procedure would be, time consuming and leave the UK in a weak position... not to mention the 5.6 billion pounds extra a year.

There are really no savings to leaving the EU - just a lot of extra costs, economic risk and enormous amounts of new negotiations.

www.wto.org/english/news_e/spra_e/spra126_e.htm - extracts from the speech:
"I have received many, many questions on the issue of the hour — the UK’s membership of the EU. So I think it would be remiss if I didn’t share some brief comments with you. This is, of course, a sovereign decision for the British people. But it’s important that in making this decision they have the facts.

Trade issues have been a major feature of the debate so far and it seems that there is still a great deal of confusion about the implications of a British exit from the EU. I would like simply to clarify some of the facts and practical implications as they relate to trade and the WTO.

The UK currently has preferential trade relationships with the EU, and with the 58 countries with which the EU currently has free trade agreements. In the event of a British exit, all of these relationships would need to be re-established to maintain the same preferential access the UK currently enjoys via the EU. This would probably entail negotiations.

In the meantime, while trade would continue, it could be on worse terms. Most likely, it would cost more for the UK to trade with the same markets — therefore damaging the competitiveness of UK companies. Here we’re talking about preferences on 60% of the country’s goods trade (that divides as around 47% with the EU itself, and around 13% with the EU’s preferential trade partners).

The implication is that UK exporters would risk having to pay up to 5.6 billion pounds each year in duty on their exports. And there could be an impact on services trade as well. In addition, the UK would also need to re-establish its terms of trade within the WTO. The UK, as an individual country, would of course remain a WTO member, but it would not have defined terms in the WTO for its trade in goods and services. It only has these commitments as an EU member. Key aspects of the EU’s terms of trade could not simply be cut and pasted for the UK. Therefore important elements would need to be negotiated.

There is no precedent for this — even the process for conducting these negotiations is unclear at this stage. I can say that negotiations merely to adjust members’ existing terms have often taken several years to complete — in certain cases up to 10 years, or more. However, as far as the UK’s case is concerned, it is impossible to tell how long it may take.

Upon leaving the EU, rights that the EU secured for its members would arguably no longer automatically apply to the UK. This includes the right to restrict certain aspects of the free movement of people and to protect public utilities from competition. The UK might need to negotiate with other WTO members to maintain these rights.

No WTO member can unilaterally decide what its rights and obligations are. I don’t have a crystal ball to assess the outcome of these various different negotiations — and nor does anybody else. The only certainty is uncertainty. However, I have spent my life as a trade negotiator and now as WTO Director-General it is my job to broker trade deals between nations, so I can try to offer some insight.

To begin with, I would say that trade negotiations are highly complex. Conducting multiple negotiations simultaneously would bring a further level of complexity.

In addition, you need willing partners. Other countries already have their negotiating priorities and may not be ready to shift resources to a new negotiation overnight. Of course, speaking of resources, all of this presumes that your own resources and negotiating infrastructure are already in place and fully operational.

Moreover, if you need to complete a deal quickly when the other side can wait, you are negotiating from a very weak position.

So, on this basis, it could take quite some time before the UK got back to a similar position that it has today in terms of its trading relationships with other countries."

OP posts:
nearlyhellokitty · 08/06/2016 09:50

Milly so the WTO is an EU funded Quango? Right. That's a bizarre statement.

How about the Chairman of HSBC? He has written an article today that completely agrees with the assessment I posted. And I still don't see how anyone can think that it will be easy and quick to replace the trade negotiations - independent of whether you think we'll be better off in the long term

WTO - Brexit could cost the UK 5.6 billion pounds a year in extra duties
OP posts:
nearlyhellokitty · 08/06/2016 09:54

milly how about Martin Lewis?
blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2016/06/05/how-to-vote-in-the-eu-referendum/

A vote for Brexit is unquestionably economically riskier than a vote to remain. Yet don’t automatically read risk as a bad thing. It simply means there’s more uncertainty – a greater variance of possible outcomes. Much of the debate stems around ‘free trade’ issues – which in simple terms mean no tariffs or taxes on imports or exports between countries.

Leaving the EU risks us being left on the sidelines. A shrinking power, spurned after a bitter divorce from our neighbours, who, wanting to discourage other leavers, offer us hideous trading conditions, while the rest of the world sees us as too small to bother with.

Or we could in the long run become a nimble low-tax, low-regulation, tiger economy. Trading unfettered with all nations across the globe, able to create our own rules and speedily reacting as a niche player to a changing world (though whether that’s good or bad depends whether you’re a Brexiteer from the political left or right).

The likely truth is of course somewhere between the two. But most independent analysis suggests Brexit will be detrimental to the economy, and on balance I think a wobble of economic uncertainty is more likely, at least in the short to medium term. Though again, it’s about chance, so it doesn’t mean it’s definite, and of course money isn’t the sole issue.

A vote IN has a level of uncertainty too. The future is always a journey, and the economies and politics of some EU countries are far from stable. But overall less change is likely....
The quote was accurate. It came from ITV’s The Agenda where I was put on the spot with a direct question. I’m not a politician, so I answered, saying: “On balance of probability, it is more likely we’ll have less money in our pockets if we vote to leave”.

I’m generally risk-averse, and that pushes me just towards an IN vote for safety, maybe 55% to 45%. Yet just as my dream holiday isn’t necessarily yours, no more is my choice of what’s right a call for you to follow me.

OP posts:
lljkk · 08/06/2016 10:29

Germany is in charge of the EU.

Then why do they get outvoted 5% of the time in the EU Council? Grip on power not very iron-like.

That Neil Woodford guy is relying on a report from Capital Economics; CE has been very pro-Brexit for a while. Their Chief Exec Roger Bootle has spent yrs speaking for them to say as much. RB also has predicted imminent house prices of 30% for as long as I can remember. Seriously just google "Roger Bootle house price crash 20xx" where xx = numbers from 00 to 16. RB is entertaining and convincing speaker if you don't follow up what he says.

I'm not saying these people lack integrity... but their integrity doesn't make their crystal ball accurate, either.

BoJo is the only guy I can think of on either side who I suspect lacks integrity in his choice of position.

STIDW · 08/06/2016 16:07

Germany is in charge of the EU.

Germany has a great deal of influence in the EU as does the UK because their economies are relatively strong but that doesn't mean they are in charge. There are 26 other countries & they must agree the terms of any Brexit agreement if we vote to leave the EU. As I said our trade proportionally is roughly the same in all 26 countries & overall the EU exports to us are only 3%. So the EU has more leverage over us than we do over them.

Winterbiscuit · 08/06/2016 20:04

Forbes' 2016 list of The World's 100 Most Powerful Women has been published. Merkel is top of the list.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page