Gransnet forums

News & politics

A MUST for all Leavers- Rory Stewart on WTO ..

(33 Posts)
jura2 Sun 02-Jun-19 17:14:38

he explains it very well- and I do hope all who say 'No Deal and WTO and a bright future' will watch and listen.

It would put us at the same level as Afghanistan

Jabberwok Sun 02-Jun-19 17:26:47

What, with the Taliban running a proportion of the country? Seriously?!!!

Nonnie Sun 02-Jun-19 17:28:38

I look forward to the sensible responses from the Leavers.

petra Sun 02-Jun-19 17:47:10

I think we have more to export than Opium.

Nonnie Sun 02-Jun-19 17:54:08

Come on petra you can do better than that.

jura2 Sun 02-Jun-19 18:25:08

yes, agreed petra. So would you be so kind as to take his points one by one and counter with excellent argument and factual info as to why he is wrong. Thanks.

Joelsnan Sun 02-Jun-19 19:36:53

I follow a number of academics and economists. Peter Ungphakhorn (I think that's how it is spelt) being one of them.
Before his retirement, Peter worked at WTO for a number of years. His information appears relatively unbiased and very relevant.
He states a trade agreement is required for UK and EU to trade on exclusive WTO terms following Brexit. Leaving without an agreement would invoke standard tariffs, however, if UK would wish to offer zero tariffs unilaterally to EU without the UK/EU WTO trade agreement being in place they could but then the UK would have to apply the same zero rate to all other trading partners unless there were already trade agreements in place with these partners. This of course could prove detrimental. The Agreement could just be one single piece of paper which sets out the trading terms and this would quickly be approved by WTO (it needs to comply with section 24 of the GATT agreement).
The confounding issue appears to be though that both sides are attaching non trading terms and exceptions to any agreement making what could be an easy process nigh on impossible.
Following these more knowledgeable people is much more informative allowing a more reasoned perspective than the scaremongering sensationalist sound bites being pumped into the media.

Jabberwok Sun 02-Jun-19 19:50:47

On a level with Afghanistan?!!! That is a less than sensible comment in more ways than one! In fact it's completely ridiculous and not worth even discussing!

jura2 Sun 02-Jun-19 20:16:41

Did you take the time to listen to him- yes, Afghanistan as one of the only countries in the world who would trade on WTO rules only.

Joelsnan Sun 02-Jun-19 20:26:29

UK is unable to make trading agreements with other countries using WTO terms to form the agreements (which most other non EU countries use) until we fully leave EU, however informal trading talks are already taking place with a number of countries and, has been shown by WTO, providing these agreements comply with GATT section 24, they can be approved within days, so in many cases trade would continue as normal. The only real issue is the trading agreement with EU. If all the non trade issues were stripped out of the discussions, this agreement could also go through in days.
Afghanistan! FGS!

Joelsnan Sun 02-Jun-19 20:57:46

For those with the time or will, here is a link to WTO GATT article 24 with some explanation. Maybe all prospective PM's should read and fully understand this before expousing their misinformation.

Day6 Sun 02-Jun-19 21:01:45

From The Financial Times.

"As the government’s fear-mongering ratchets up, we are hearing all sorts of myths about the WTO presenting a “cliff edge”. Nothing could be further from the truth. WTO rules are international laws that regulate trading relationships of its 164 member states and 98 per cent of global trade. This is not some deadly regime we all need to be afraid of. In fact British businesses that currently trade with American companies are making use of these rules. They have not “crashed out” of anything."

"Far from it. America is our biggest national export market and we run a surplus on our trade with them while having a huge deficit when it comes to EU trade. In fact, our exports to non-EU countries we trade on WTO terms with have grown three times as fast as our trade with EU countries since the mid-2000s. The US, China and India are among the EU’s biggest trading partners — and they trade on WTO terms as well."

"Opting for a “World Trade Deal” would prevent the EU from discriminating against UK businesses. The EU would not be able to set tariffs on our goods that are higher than those they impose on other countries. Arbitrary health and safety inspections at borders would not be lawful and the WTO’s new “ Trade Facilitation Agreement” would require the EU to maintain borders which are as frictionless as possible, using all the modern technologies at its disposal."

"Leaving the EU under these terms would be much better for our future prosperity than agreeing to Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement."

Well, Mrs May's WA is all but dead and buried. I believe substantial negotiations should have taken place by now to ensure that we can have a seamless and smooth transition to WTO rules once we wave bye-bye to Brussels and the EU.

There is no "crashing out". This is the language of Project fear. It sounds dramatic and scary, which is the aim of remainers.

GracesGranMK3 Sun 02-Jun-19 21:43:37

The one thing I would say about Rory Stewart is that while recognising he has many views I don't agree with, is that he really doesn't go in for scaremongering sensationalist sound bites.

That, of course, will be the very reason why the obvious few did not even bother to watch the video before trying to put it down. There is that lovely quote which seems to apply to some of the posts above "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

If you want to be seen as the lowest common denominator in the discussions about belonging or not belonging to the EU keep believing in the simplistic "Brexit means Brexit", "Leave means Leave", etc., which some don't yet seem to have realised mean absolutely nothing - they do not have a meaning. They are the equivalent to the mind control of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

MaizieD Sun 02-Jun-19 21:44:03

I don't have access to the FT, Day6. Would you be so kind as to tell us who wrote the piece you are quoting from?

Joelsnan Sun 02-Jun-19 22:08:29

Goodness, didn't know you were into surveillance.

Your comments really are beyond the pale.

Urmstongran Sun 02-Jun-19 22:55:20


Day6 Sun 02-Jun-19 23:25:09

I totally agree Joelsnan.

GGMK3's habitual derisory and shameful comments regarding Leavers make discussion with him/her a complete and utter waste of time.

GracesGranMK3 Mon 03-Jun-19 08:02:17

But you would rather "waste" time criticising me Day6, than give a link to the so called FT article and it's date, or explain the meaning of the leavers much loved Newspeak.

GracesGranMK3 Mon 03-Jun-19 08:05:03

Author not link. Link is worthless as behind a paywall.

Nonnie Mon 03-Jun-19 10:33:33

Day6 I can't sign in to that link, as others have said please tell me who wrote it and when.

GracesGranMK3 Mon 03-Jun-19 11:57:02

... GGMK3's habitual derisory and shameful comments regarding Leavers make discussion with him/her a complete and utter waste of time. (Sun 02-Jun-19 23:25:09)

Day 6 I didn't mention "Leavers" in that post, just the words being used.

I don't know if you have read Nineteen Eighty-Four but, right at the very end, in an appendix, written as if it is well after the period in the book, it suggests Big Brother was defeated not by people but by the very language they tried to impose.

Newspeak was, and what we see now is, designed to narrow thinking. We have seen its possible defeat with NF and SJ using the quote about 'losers consent' and trying to twist its meaning. People will simply not agree - there are too many words in "Democracy depends on the consent of the loser" and it is possible to contradict their "foot on the face of humanity" explanation.

Way back then Orwell said " “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible,”, so I am not sure why I am suddenly being attacked as being "beyond the pale" or "derisory and shameful". Perhaps that is what happens at the moment when you speak the truth.

Going back to the OP, the one thing Rory Stewart if doing is discussing - not using propaganda techniques but actually talking about the issues. I may not like his politics but I take my hat off to him for his attempts to bring some honesty into the debate. If you think he is wrong in the way he explains WTO, tell us in similar detail why. Weasal words have ceased to cut it.

Nonnie Mon 03-Jun-19 16:34:30

Another report out today although of course it is from 'Experts.

Brexit uncertainty continues to take toll on manufacturers - Make UK/BDO survey
03 June 2019

Economic lunacy of ‘No Deal’ scenario must be avoided at all costs

Key findings:
Domestic and export orders continue to weaken
Gap between output and orders increased
Export orders remain at weakest levels since referendum
Investment intentions paralysed
Manufacturing forecast to grow just 0.2% in 2019, 0.8% in 2020

Joelsnan Mon 03-Jun-19 18:44:19

If you think he is wrong in the way he explains WTO, tell us in similar detail why. Weasal words have ceased to cut it

I agree he tried his best, but failed on content, he has got the kind of face you want to believe or he may cry. However, if you need to understand where he is wrong, I suggest you do some detailed research for yourself as you appear to ignore the evidence of others.

varian Mon 03-Jun-19 18:47:31

Either Rory Stewart is right on this or he is wrong. Those who claim he's wrong should provide evidence to back up their view.

annodomini Mon 03-Jun-19 19:44:23

Varian, you should know by now that evidence means nothing to die-hard leavers. ?