Skip to main content

Free Trade Agreement - not such a big deal perhaps

I am wholeheartedly a Remainer. However, 'my side' can from time to time over-egg the dangers of leaving when it comes to Free Trade Agreements (FTA).

The first thing to point out is that trade agreements work both ways. When Brexiters state 'they will still want to sell us their cars' - a reference to VW, BMW, Renault, Fiat and Mercedes putting pressure on the EU to keep trade flowing - the only reason they might face tariffs will not be because of the EU mandating 'punishing' taxes, but the UK's own customs imposing them. It's the importing country who 'fines' other nations' exporters. In other words, if VWs etc attract tariffs, it's because the UK government applies them to force Brits to buy British cars.

So when they try to make VWs and BMWs more expensive for British citizens to buy, that's not going to make them popular at home. It's not going to happen. Brits will continue to buy their French, Italian and German cars without being fined by their own government. That's called shooting ourselves in the foot. If BMWs etc weren't already being sold here, then perhaps tariffs might be considered. But we've been buying and desiring them for donkey's years.

Whether the EU make British cars more expensive or not, is for them to decide. Frankly they probably will - and who in the EU will give a damn? They've got plenty of choice over which cars to buy other than British ones. We don't.

But the claim by 'my side' I need to challenge most is that when we leave in March 2019, we will immediately fall outside the existing FTAs the EU has already negotiated, and that this will hurt. The numbers of countries claimed that we will no longer have FTAs with has variously drifted from 50 up to 75 and somewhere I even read over 90. The fact is about 85... but what we're not told is who these FTAs are with. And the truth is, they're not worth bothering about. Nearly all want to sell us stuff. We sell them all very little indeed.

Here's the list of all nations the EU has FTAs with (35), have agreed but not signed (50), or are still negotiating (12). These exclude nations like the USA and China with which the EU has no trade agreements. Sounds a lot, but the vast majority are small third world countries who don't buy anything from the UK anyway. All the big trading nations are either in the EU or don't have FTAs with the EU.

So despite wanting to wave the 'we'll lose all our FTAs' flag, the reality is the only FTA that matters is the one with the EU, and they're not going to give us one. And the UK won't impose unpopular tariffs on EU imports as a tit for tat, so we've got nothing to negotiate. Which is why I'm a Remainer.

Oh and if you're screaming at the screen 'what about our sovereignty?', I challenge you to name one law we don't want that's been imposed on us. That's one sodding law in 43 years of membership. Can't? Perhaps that's because we helped determine them and could veto those we didn't like, and because their purpose is to raise standards everywhere in the interests of safety, fairness and equality. But we Brits know best.


Popular posts from this blog

Phillips screws - yes I'm angry about them too

Don't get me wrong. They're a brilliant invention to assist automation and prevent screwdrivers from slipping off screw heads - damaging furniture, paintwork and fingers in the process. Interestingly they weren't invented by Mr Phillips at all, but by a John P Thompson who sold Mr P the idea after failing to commercialise it. Mr P, on the otherhand, quickly succeeded where Mr T had failed. Incredible isn't it. You don't just need a good idea, you need a great salesman and, more importantly, perfect timing to make a success out of something new. Actually, it would seem, he did two clever things (apart from buying the rights). He gave the invention to GM to trial. No-brainer #1. After it was adopted by the great GM, instead of trying to become their sole supplier of Phillips screws, he sold licenses to every other screw manufacturer in the world. A little of a lot is worth a great deal more than a lot of a little + vulnerability (watch out Apple!). My gromble is abo

Would we pay more for their stuff?

I'm confused. Brexiters argue the Germans, Italians and French will still want to sell us their cars, so continued free trade with the UK is in their best interests. But we'll have to negotiate this (with an EU unwilling to make leaving easy) by threatening to make their cars more expensive for British people to buy. We'll do this because WE need to make imports more expensive to try to restore our balance of payments. Are Brits prepared to pay more for their Audis, Fiats and Renaults in order to make British cars more appealing, or do Brexiters want to pay more in order to punish them for taxing our insurance and banking products? Either way, imports will cost more. While in the EU, we buy their cars because we like the choice and don't want our own government to tax them. Indeed it would be better for British car manufacturing if we went back to the good old days of being encouraged to buy cheaper British cars (made by foreign owned factories). Is that what Brexite

Addictions. Porn, Drugs, Alcohol and Sex. Don't prevent it, make it safer.

In 1926 New York, during Prohibition, 1,200 people were poisoned by whiskey containing small quantities of wood alcohol (methanol). Around 400 died, the rest were blinded. The methanol they drank was in the moonshine they had bought illegally. In fact it had been added by law to industrial ethanol in order to make it undrinkable. Prohibition existed to protect everyone from the 'evils of the demon drink'. However, people still wanted to enjoy alcohol. So bootleggers bought cheap industrial alcohol and attempted to distill it to remove the impurities the state had added, but the process wasn't regulated. The state was inadvertently responsible for the suffering - although it was easy for them to blame the bootleggers and to justify escalating the war. This didn't stop the bootleggers. In fact it forced them to become more violent to protect their operations, and even less cautious about their production standards. Volumes of illicit alcohol, and therefore proportionat