Brexit

[Graham Breeze]

[QUOTE=Mike T;624889]...it is all so subjective, very few facts. QUOTE]

Looking at the bigger picture: I am reminded of the FRA 2006 AGM proposal from the floor (ie NOT supported by the Committee) that the FRA should secede from UK Athletics which, on a show of hands, was “overwhelmingly supported”.

This led to the 2007 postal ballot of the full membership when members were asked whether (or not) “ the FRA should stay affiliated with UKA for the present and review the future position in the light of experience”.

The ballot response was 86% to remain.

From "overwhelming support" to leave to 86% to remain. What changed?

Well, the AGM vote was based on little accurate information but a lot of emotional lobbying .

The postal ballot was taken after objective information had been made available and circulated to all members.

Now I would not suggest that the FRA Committee manages things better than the Government but if the Brexit view prevails on Thursday that would not be an unreasonable conclusion.

[CL]

Seeing the Prime Minister frantically declaring his own cowardice was unedifying. I don't think he knew the implications of what he was saying and the encouragement it would give to an aggressor like Putin's Russia.

The question revolves around this: if EU members were committed to the principle of freedom - namely free trade - why would it matter if we left the EU and why would that make war - as the Prime Minister would have us believe - more likely?

You see the prime minister knows either consciously or subconsciously that the EU doesn't embrace the principle of freedom, so he's terrified of the spite and revenge that may be directed against us if we leave. So his cowardice is the main argument for staying in because if we left he'd have to defend us against tariffs etc. So he'd rather us stay in and settle for a few scraps of what ever the EU fling us, than stand our corner.

It's bad enough that people are going to vote to stay through fear but what can we expect when our own leader hasn't an ounce of courage?

[Muddy Retriever]

True but the EU can choose to setup any trade barriers they choose against these countries.

If the UK wasn't able to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU (unlikely as the EU exports more to the UK than vice versa), then the rules of the World Trade Organisation would take effect,. Under these rules the EU would not be able to discriminate specifically against the UK and we would face the same tariffs as any other country without a free trade agreement. So the argument that Britain wouldn't have access to the Single market as is often cited by the Remain camp is completely untrue.

The UK would of course face some tariffs but they are relatively small these days on most products. Plus we are often told by the Reamin camp that the Pound will drop after Brexit. Good, it is too high and this would make our exports cheaper, which would more than offset the cost of additional tariffs.

And let's not forget, leaving the EU will allow us to pursue free trade deals with other large countries around the world like China and India.

[Derby Tup]

One of my customers has changed sides. The Bank of England swayed him out to in. He's 29 and thinks we'll remain in the EU off the youth vote

[noel]

And let's not forget, leaving the EU will allow us to pursue free trade deals with other large countries around the world like China and India.

As HH already pointed out, the EU already has free trade deals with these countries. So you could replace "allow" with "require".

[Witton Park]

As HH already pointed out, the EU already has free trade deals with these countries. So you could replace "allow" with "require".

Why require?

I just wonder why organisations like the BBC haven't put together a series of programmes about the issues around EU membership to try and educate us all in a way the layman can understand.
They are supposed to be the public service broadcaster and yet all they seem to do is put one of either side on platform and allow an audience to try and embarrass them.

It's embarrassing watching it.

I like to think I know something about traded goods. I've been involved in import/export since the 80s. Not for a mega sized organisation, although the biggest company I have worked for was turnover £400 million so not tiny either.

We hear on the one hand that departure from the EU will mean tariffs as they will not grant us free trade access to the EU.
Maybe - but that actually would probably help us.

Let me explain using the Car Trade as there has been much doom predicted for our car manufacturing if we leave.

UK Car Manufacturing and our Imports and Exports
Figures are 1st quarter 2016 and are from HMRC trade info figures for Chapter 87 Products (Vehicles). Amounts are £s Billions.
EU Imports = 11.9 UK Exports to EU = 4.3
RoW Imports = 2.3 UK Exports to RoW = 4.4
UK Sales in UK = 2.6
Ttl UK Market = 16.8 Ttl UK Manufactured = 11.3

You can see from this that we sold £4.3B UK manufactured cars to the EU in the period. So how would the imposition of a 10% WTO tariff (that is the actual rate) affect this figure?

It would mean a drop of course. How much is hard to say because exchange rate comes in to play and the prevailing market conditions going forward.

But let's keep it simple for the example and assume 10% price increase of our cars in the EU will lead to a 10% drop in sales in the EU.

That means that our car makers will lose £430M of Sales or 3.8% drop overall. The EU car buyers would still need cars of course so the EU and RoW manufacturers would see a boost to sales in the EU and share that £430M between them.

Doom?

No, of course not. It's an adjustment that the companies would get used to.

But there's a flip side.

The tariffs are both ways (unless we have a very stupid government) and so let's have a look at how the same treatment would work in reverse.

The EU sells £11.9B in the same period in to the UK. 10% duty, 10% drop of sales = £1.19B

That £1.19B would be shared out in the UK market by the RoW and the UK manufacturers and based on a 50/50 split that would give the UK manufacturers a boost of £595 Million.

So in a tariff environment the UK could make a net gain of £165 Million in Sales and the EU would lose sales overall.
The biggest gainer would be the RoW that would pick up sales in both markets.

It's not that surprising as that's what low level tariffs do, they correct a trade imbalance.

It's funny how "trade tariffs" are used by commentators in a negative light and yet "anti-dumping duties" are used in a positive light.

They are the same thing. the ADD is just a temporary measure used to deal with issues such as Chinese steel.

Now whilst on the subject of steel, on the HMRC website you can see the trade figures for steel. The UK doesn't really have a problem with Chinese steel.
The UK has a problem with EU steel. Chapter 73 Iron and Steel figures show we

• import 4 times more from the EU than RoW.
• Have a huge trade deficit with the EU.
• Have a trade surplus with RoW.

The issue for the UK is not Chinese steel imports, it is EU steel imports mainly because they subsidise the energy supply.
So the EU anti-dumping measures do little for our steel industry unless we are in a position to impose our own on the EU.

[JohnK]

One of my customers has changed sides. The Bank of England swayed him out to in. He's 29 and thinks we'll remain in the EU off the youth vote

I hope so it is the youngsters future at stake

[Witton Park]

[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;624904]

...it is all so subjective, very few facts. QUOTE]

Looking at the bigger picture: I am reminded of the FRA 2006 AGM proposal from the floor (ie NOT supported by the Committee) that the FRA should secede from UK Athletics which, on a show of hands, was “overwhelmingly supported”.

This led to the 2007 postal ballot of the full membership when members were asked whether (or not) “ the FRA should stay affiliated with UKA for the present and review the future position in the light of experience”.

The ballot response was 86% to remain.

From "overwhelming support" to leave to 86% to remain. What changed?

Well, the AGM vote was based on little accurate information but a lot of emotional lobbying .

The postal ballot was taken after objective information had been made available and circulated to all members.

Now I would not suggest that the FRA Committee manages things better than the Government but if the Brexit view prevails on Thursday that would not be an unreasonable conclusion.

Back in the day Graham, the portion of FRA members that were members of an athletics club used to pay their £2 per year Northern England AA levy or other area levy.

Then the some members were granted the free EA number when EA took on the athlete registration scheme and put it up to £5.

Now that EA has withdrawn that scheme and EA fees are £13 and increasing going forward, and there is no tangible benefit in return other than seeing an expanded, salaried executive, I wonder what the outcome of a vote would be now.

It's only a tenner a year of course, that some manage to avoid paying. However, add it up and it's 100s of 1000s being levied on the grass roots of sport and making is way up to the professional executive.

[Muddy Retriever]

As HH already pointed out, the EU already has free trade deals with these countries. So you could replace "allow" with "require".

That's not true, the EU doesn't have free trade deals with China and India, nor Japan for that matter. In fact the EU doesn't have a great track record at negotiating such deals for a very good reason. When it is negotiating it has to take into account the views and interests of 28 different countries. They often conflict with some countries wanting to be quite protectionist while others (like the UK) are more liberal.

A lot has been made of it taking the EU seven years to negotiate a free trade deal with Canada as a reason why it would be tough for the UK to negotiate its own deals. But that just demonstrates the unwieldiness of the EU that has to balance all the different interests of its members. The UK would have no such problems. A good example is Switzerland (and even tiny Iceland) that has a free trade deal with China.

[Derby Tup]

I agree that the media generally hasn't been helpful in informing the public. I suspect for many people the sorry spectacle of politicians becoming increasingly desperate to come up with ever more hysterical fear tactics is yet another political turn off, especially for younger voters