BrExit?

[dragance]

Car

[hazard]

[Lord Protector]

 

 

Лондон нестрпљив да прослави дан независности

 

Присталице муњевитог разлаза траже да се што пре прекине агонија с Бриселом, док други табор очекује да мирни и дуги преговори доведу до најбољег решења

 

Колико год се британска премијерка Тереза Меј трудила да убеди јавност да међу торијевцима постоји апсолутна слога око изласка земље из Европске уније, и јуче је у току ванредног првог састанка кабинета после летњег распуста било јасно да то није баш тако. Пре него што се срела са својим министрима, премијерка је поновила да не треба губити време на идеју о некаквом полубрегзиту.

Она је искључила могућност изласка на нови, други референдум, што предлажу поједини утицајни чланови опозиционе Лабуристичке странке. Упозорила је и да су узалудни „покушаји останка у Европској унији кроз мала врата”. Медији су је одмах ухватили за реч, па су још у току њеног уводног слова упозорили да се „на мала врата улази”, те да се тај израз не може употребити за останак у нечијој кући или унији.

Без обзира на језик којим се о „брегзиту” говори, не заборавља се да је некадашња министарка унутрашњих послова, заједно са Дејвидом Камероном учествовала у кампањи за останак у ЕУ, додуше прилично благо и неубедљиво, а да је сада предводница супротне опције. Поред ње је на јучерашњем састанку седео Борис Џонсон, сада министар спољних послова, некадашњи градоначелник Лондона и најватренији поборник „брегзита”. Деловало је да се досађује док слуша премијерку, примећују медији. Он је био виђен да наследи Камерона и постане лидер торијеваца и премијер Британије, али се у тих неколико дана после референдума у општој конфузији готово случајно погодило да је Тереза Меј изашла као једини кандидат за предводника странке.

 Премијерки замерено на лапсусу о малим вратима, док медији примећују да је Борис Џонсон седео одмах до ње и деловао као да се досађује

Њена три „министра за брегзит”, како их крсте британски медији – шеф дипломатије Борис Џонсон, Лијам Фокс, задужен за међународну трговину, и Дејвид Дејвис, специјално овлашћен за преговоре око изласка из ЕУ – од почетка су били заговорници победничке опције, али је зато Филип Хамонд, садашњи министар финансија, био у Камероновом табору и залагао се за останак у ЕУ.

Хамонд верује да је могуће задржати Британију унутар заједничког европског тржишта уколико сваки сектор појединачно буде преговарао са ЕУ. Са њим се не слажу Лијам Фокс и Дејвид Дејвис. Они су убеђени да Брисел неће допустити да Британија ограничи и затвори врата мигрантима из Европе, а да јој при том омогући привилегован приступ тржишту.

Не може се дозволити Лондону да бира од Европе оно што јој одговара и да одбацује оно што јој се не свиђа, понављају један за другим најутицајнији лидери Европске уније, који траже да се с раздвајањем почне што пре, уједно истичући и да Брисел мора добро да се припреми за преговоре.

Када ће се покренути процедура, за какву опцију треба да се заложи влада Терезе Меј и када ће се Британија најзад одвојити од ЕУ – питања су на која и даље нема коначног одговора.

Једна утицајна јака група „брегзиташа” залаже се да се агонија са Бриселом што пре прекине. Они тврде да би Британија могла да слави дан независности већ следеће године. Утицајна је и струја умерених који би хтели да се страсти стишају и да се везе са ЕУ одрже. Њих зову „полубрегзиташи”. Њихова опција се у влади одбацује, али аналитичари истичу да је у природи британске политике да одуговлачи док тема свима не досади – па да онда добије оно што заиста хоће.

Edited September 1, 2016 by slow

[bigvlada]

Leaving the EU would mean renegotiating more than 100 trade agreements

 

Who does the UK trade with, how much would tariffs be affected by leaving the EU, and how many agreements would have to be renegotiated? In an article that first appeared at Bruegel, Pia Hüttl (left) and Silvia Merler review the UK’s trade position and conclude that if a Brexit occurs, the UK would need to renegotiate more than 100 trade agreements.

In 2014, total UK trade was about 900 bn euros, with a total trade deficit of 139.5 bn. The UK imported predominantly from the EU, with which it had a trade deficit of 93 bn euro, and exported mostly to non-EU countries, with which it also had a trade deficit of 46bn. EU countries accounted for 53% of UK imports and 48% of UK exports.

All but 2 of the top-10 trading partners of the UK belong to the European Union. The UK’s main trading partner in 2014 was Germany, which accounted for 12.3% of all UK trade in that year. In second position was the United States (9.5%), followed by the Netherlands (7.5%), China (7.3%) and France (5.9%). Together, these 10 countries accounted for 61.4% of UK trade in 2014.

 

 

 

The UK was a net importer from 7 of its 10 main trading partners. The biggest bilateral imbalance in 2014 was the 36.3 bn euro trade deficit recorded with Germany, followed by the 26.2 bn trade deficit with China and the 12.3 bn deficit with the Netherlands. The biggest surplus position (16.5 bn) was recorded with Switzerland, followed by a 7.5bn surplus with Ireland and a 5.1bn surplus with the US.

 

 

 

Trade policy for EU Member States is conducted exclusively at the EU level. In case of Brexit, all the EU trade agreements of which the UK is automatically part as an EU member state would need to be re-negotiated on a bilateral basis.

Figure 3 shows the total value of UK trade broken down according to the different types of trade agreements in place with each partner. Only 15% of UK total trade is currently with countries that are not members of the EU and are not covered by any EU trade agreements. 51% of UK trade is with members of the European Union, 4% is with countries in the European Economic Area (EEA), 9% is covered by existing EU Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) and 21% is with countries with whom an EU PTA is currently under negotiation or exists, but it is not yet implemented.

The EU currently has existing PTAs with 52 countries, and it is negotiating trade agreements with another 72 countries. In case of Brexit, the UK would therefore need to re-negotiate or start new bilateral negotiations on 124 trade agreements, plus one additional trade agreement re-defining its own trade status as a third country vis-à-vis the EU.

If we limit the focus to the top-50 trade partners of the UK, who account for 92% of all UK trade, 41 of them do have some trade agreements or ongoing negotiations with the EU. 18 of the UK’s top 50 trade partners are EU countries, one (Norway) is an EEA country, one (Turkey) has a customs union agreement with the EU, eight countries have existing EU PTAs in place and 13 countries are currently negotiating EU trade agreements. This would translate into a minimum of 24 negotiations to be concluded.

 

Renegotiating these agreements would take time: as an example, negotiations on the EU’s trade agreement with Canada started in 2009 and were only concluded with the legal review of the texts in February 2016. Meanwhile, the UK would also be excluded from the currently ongoing EU negotiations with the US, Japan and China, which would also need to be restarted on a bilateral basis. While Brexit supporters might argue that the UK would have more flexibility when negotiating alone, it is also likely that its bargaining power would be considerably reduced compared to that of the EU, which is one of the top three traders in the world.

Negotiating a trade agreement between the UK and the EU might also take considerable time: the French economy minister has for example said recently that in the case of Brexit “collective energy would be spent on unwinding existing links, not re-creating new ones”. During the time of negotiations the UK’s exports would probably be subject to the EU’s current Most-Favoured Nation (MFN) tariffs.

Based on data from the WTO Tariffs Database, we find that the average (weighted by 2014 exports) MFN tariff on UK exports to the EU-28 would be about 3.2%. If we were to apply an average tariff of 3.2% to the total 2014 intra-EU exports –  which amounted to 182 bn euro – the average tariff cost would be about 5.84bn euro.

This is obviously a simplistic exercise, aimed at giving a rough idea of the cost associated with losing the current regime which the UK enjoys on intra-EU exports as a member of the EU. It should be kept in mind that the cost would be unevenly distributed across sectors. For example, the sector that accounts for the UK’s largest trade surplus with the EU (mineral fuels and related products) faces an average tariff of only 0.8%. Meanwhile, fish exports, which contributed a trade surplus of 517m euro in 2014, would face an average tariff of 11%.

 

 

 

These few data should suffice to show that the outcome of a Brexit on the UK’s trade performance would be uncertain and likely not very rosy. Businesses in the UK seem to realise this, as is shown by a survey conducted jointly in 2013 by YouGov and the Confederation of British Industry (Figure 4). 65 percent of respondents argued that if the UK were to leave the EU, this would have a negative or very negative impact on the UK’s ability to influence the policies affecting their businesses. 86 percent said Brexit would have a negative or very negative impact on the UK’s access to EU markets and 82 percent said it would negatively affect the UK’s ability to participate in EU supply chains. Importantly, 42-43% of respondents said that Brexit would also negatively affect the UK’s access to non-EU markets and non-EU supply chains.

An apocryphal British newspaper headline allegedly once proclaimed “Fog in the Channel. Continent cut off.” This sentiment has since become a symbol of the UK’s perception of its relationship with Europe: that the UK can function very well alone and it is instead the “continental Europeans” who most need the British. However, in terms of international trade, it seems that the UK would struggle to act in splendid isolation. The consequences of a Brexit in this domain could be unpleasant, and re-establishing the UK’s trade agreements and networks would be a long a complex process.

This post, which originally appeared at Bruegel, represents the views of the authors and not those of BrexitVote, nor the LSE.

Pia Hüttl is an affiliate fellow at Bruegel. Prior to this, she worked as a Trainee in the Monetary Policy Stance Division of the European Central Bank, and as a Blue Book Stagiaire at the monetary policy, exchange rate policy of the euro area, ERM II and euro adoption Unit of DG ECFIN.

Silvia Merler is an affiliate fellow at Bruegel.  Her main research interests include international macro and financial economics, central banking and EU institutions and policy making. Before joining Bruegel, she worked as an economic analyst in DG Economic and Financial Affairs of the European Commission (ECFIN).

 

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/03/04/leaving-the-eu-would-mean-renegotiating-more-than-100-trade-agreements/

Edited September 4, 2016 by bigvlada

[Prospero]

Nađoh kratku vest u Tanjugovom biltenu (ekonomski servis), 21. februar 1970.

 

 

 

- Britanija će platiti svoje učlanjenje u EEZ (AP, London, 11. februar 1970)

 

Učlanjenje Velike Britanije u EEZ će stajati ovu zemlju od 100 miliona do 1100 miliona funti a povećaće troškove života za 4 do 5%, kaže se u Beloj knjizi koju je britanska Vlada objavila u vezi sa problemom ulaska u EZ.

Nemoguće je tačno izračunati koliko će se dobiti a koliko izgubiti, ali, kaže se u Beloj knjizi običnim britanskim građanima koliko će verovatno morati da posegnu u svoj džep da i omogućili zemlji da se učlani u EZ.

 

 

:)

[hazard]

dala baba dinar da udje u kolo, dva da izadje

[namenski]

1967: De Gaulle says 'non' to Britain - again

 

The French President, Charles de Gaulle, has for a second time said he will veto Britain's application to join the Common Market.

He warned France's five partners in the European Economic Community (EEC) that if they tried to impose British membership on France it would result in the break-up of the community.

All five - Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy and Germany - have said they would support negotiations towards British membership.

Only France remains opposed.

 

[bigvlada]

Pošto britanska vlada ne zna šta hoće a veoma uopšteno zna šta neće, Japan im je poslao otvoreno pismo^tm sa spiskom stvari koje se od njih očekuju ako i dalje misle da imaju japanske investicije na dosadašnjem nivou. 

 

http://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000185466.pdf

 

Ukratko:

 

[Requests directed at the UK and the EU]

 

・ maintenance of the current tariff rates and customs clearance procedures;

・ introduction of provisions for cumulative rules of origin;

・ maintenance of the access to workers who are nationals of the UK or the EU;

・ maintenance of the freedom of establishment and the provision of financial services, including the “single passport” system;

・ maintenance of the freedom of cross-border investment and the provision of services as well as the free movement of capital, including that between associated companies;

・ maintenance of the current level of information protection and the free transfer of data;

・ unified protection of intellectual property rights;

・ maintenance of harmonisation of the regulations and standards between the UK and the EU (including the maintenance of established frameworks of mutual recognition and equivalence);

・ securing the UK’s function as a clearing centre for the euro and the location within the UK of EU agencies such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA); and

・ maintenance of the UK’s access to the EU budget for research and development and participation in the Japan-EU joint research project.

 

[Additional requests directed at the UK]

 

・ liberalisation of trade in goods without the burdens of customs duties and procedures;

・ maintenance of access to workers with the necessary skills;

・ maintenance of basic policies regarding the entry of foreign capital;

・ implementation of measures to promote investment;

・ maintenance of the current levels of information protection and the free transfer of data in case the UK establishes its own legislation distinct from the EU’s;

・ ensuring the consistency of regulations and standards between the UK and the EU; and

・ ensuring that the EU’s research and development budget applies to research institutions in the UK.

 

[Additional request directed at the EU]

 

・ provision of transitional arrangements for the single passporting system

Edited September 6, 2016 by bigvlada

[Marvin (Paranoid Android)]

Brexiters furious as corrupt EU forces Apple to pay proper amount of tax

 

Brexit supporters have reacted with fury after the ‘corrupt and

unaccountable’ EU told Apple it must pay the correct amount of tax.

 

Apple has been told it must pay $13bn in back taxes after the EU had said its deal

with the Irish tax authority was illegal – a move described as ‘patently ridiculous’ by

Brexiters.

 

Brexit voter Simon Williams told us, “The EU is corrupt to the core, obviously. It does

nothing whatsoever of value, ever.

 

“I mean, what sort of organisation goes around picking on helpless multi-billion dollar

multinationals who are simply trying to do what they can to keep money out of the

pockets of European taxpayers?

 

“This is just so typical of the EU. When they’re not sitting back on their fat salaries

arguing about how straight our bananas should be, they’re uncovering massive tax

avoidance schemes that are costing ordinary Europeans billions and billions of Euros.

 

“It’s outrageous frankly, and I can’t wait for the UK to be free of their punitive grasp.”

 

A spokesperson for the Leave campaign said that the position of the EU shows that

the UK is right to leave.

 

Dominic Cummings explained, “When our government makes a sweetheart deal with a

global multinational so it can pay far less tax than it should, we don’t want some

faceless EU bureaucrat telling us we can’t do it because it’s bad for the taxpayer.

 

“We want Britain’s dodgy deals to be great again – and outside the EU we will be free

to do behind closed doors deals with absolutely anyone we like.

 

“What’s not to like about that?”

 

 

Ovi sa Dejli Meša i Njuzthumpa proživljavaju zlatno doba ^_^

[dragance]

Nije dodgy deal, Apple je u Irskoj već 30 godina, i niti Irska ne traži od Applea da išta više plate, niti imaju tajni potpis. Više je to ljubomora ostalih u EU na Irsku, jer se plaše da će baš tu neki od velikih doći iz Londona.

[Dr Arslanagić]

Irska ako misli da bude Kajmansko otočje, ne može biti u EU.

[dragance]

Kako je to Irska Kajmani? Sve je javno, poreski zakoni su isti već preko 20 godina. I nije Apple tamo jedini, tu su i Intel i ostali veliki.

 

Problem je zavist, odnosno oni bi dupe dali da je Apple u Nemačkoj, Poljskoj ili gde već, samo Apple u Irskoj ima preko 5,000 zaposlenih (imaju veliki kampus u Korku) i najveći su poreski platiša u Irskoj.

 

Da su "Kajmani", imali bi samo 2 ili 3 "predstavnika" kao fasadu.

 

No dobro, ne dozvolimo činjenicama da ugroze interesantno štivo.

[Dr Arslanagić]

Da, EU ćate mrze Irsku pa im lupaju dandare.

[borris_]

I daju pare za razvoj infrastrukture.

[dragance]

EU ćate ne bi da dopuste da nekoliko velikih Japanskih kompanija razmatra samo Irsku kao njihovo EU sedište, zato ovolika galama. Apple neće ništa naplatiti jer će se ovo rešiti bez kazne, ali poruka je poslata Irskoj i corps da se ne nadaju sličnom tretmanu. Politička igranka koja nema veze sa Irskom i poreskim zakonima, koji su isti od 1991. godine.