Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Apr 26 02:42:26 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Brexit: Russia blocks WTO membership
Sat Oct 27 09:42:40
The big, strong EU would have protected the UK from evil Russia. Now it is alone.

Why do the Brits want to be an unimportant nothingness?


Russia seeks to capitalise on Brexit after blocking Liam Fox's WTO plan

UK must now open talks with countries that opposed proposals or face trade disputes

Russia is among 20 countries that are looking to squeeze a commercial advantage from Brexit after blocking an attempt by the international trade secretary, Liam Fox, to fast-track a World Trade Organization deal on the UK’s terms of trade with the world.

Whitehall is now facing “up to two dozen” different negotiations with countries over how much meat and dairy produce will be permitted into the British market and what tariffs the UK will set on imports.

The development will pile pressure on the UK’s already strained resources. The Department for International Trade spent more than £1m on recruitment consultants alone in its first year trying to take on experienced trade negotiators, an area that had previously been left entirely to the EU.

The UK is a full member of the WTO, but as an EU member state it currently shares a set of so-called schedules with the other 27 countries that make up the bloc. Fox, a passionate believer in Brexit, had sought to rush through a set of the UK’s independent schedules on the tariffs and quotas that would be imposed on goods from the world’s major agricultural exporters.

The plan had been for the UK and EU, as independent WTO members, to divide the current quotas between the two according to the historical flows of trade in each product, in what was described as a “technical rectification”.

A large number of countries opposed the plan, however, claiming that they would lose out from the arrangement. The UK will now have to open talks with all those who have opposed the proposals or face trade disputes that could stymie future bilateral trade deals.

David Henig, UK director of the European Centre for International Political Economy, said: “This is ‘Brexit meets reality’, more than a huge problem. It is not a terrific surprise that this has happened. We expected almost all the big agricultural economies – the US, New Zealand – to do this. But in terms of the bilateral free trade deals that we hope to get with Australia, New Zealand and the US, these could be delayed while we haggle over the numbers.

“It’s a complicated discussion and it could easily take a couple of years to sort out and that means it would be three or four years before we could implement bilaterals, so it is likely to introduce delays.”

Despite the setback, the UK will be able to trade on the provisional set of schedules it has tabled while it negotiates with those who withheld support. The tabling of the disputed schedules will also allow the UK government to liberalise their tariffs and quotes on some products to allow non-EU importers to compete with European importers to the benefit of British consumers in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

The UK lodged a 719-page draft of the terms of post-Brexit trade with the WTO earlier this summer, with formal “reservations” raised during a three-month consultation period that has just ended.

Fox told the Commons in a written statement on Thursday: “As expected, some trading partners have expressed reservations about our proposed treatment of tariff rate quotas.”

The Department for International Trade said: “The large majority of our trading partners do not have any objections to our proposed goods schedule. A small number have submitted their concerns and would like to discuss further.

“This was expected and does not impact our ability to trade independently. The terms we have set out will form the basis of our trade policy while we engage with our WTO partners to address their concerns.”

Sat Oct 27 15:58:51
Predicted before vote. Argentina saying same over Falklands.

Sat Oct 27 16:24:38
Sat Oct 27 16:30:42
They were called the Falklands before Argentina was a country.
Sun Oct 28 01:04:05
Eh, at the end of the day America will have Britain's back. Blood is thicker then water. They also have Canada and Australia. Britain never needed the EU, and honestly the EU is rapidly turning into more of a geostrategic problem then a benefit or potential partner. It's increasingly authoritarian tendencies and delusions of grandeur will have to be slapped down by America eventually.

So its good that Britain is getting out now.
Sun Oct 28 05:10:11

The US is one of the 24 countries blocking us at the WTO.
Sun Oct 28 05:10:54

"Eh, at the end of the day America ..."

America is dead. They are relying on Trump. And America didn't help a whole lot when Argentina tried to take the Falklands by force.

Our relationship with the Brits is only special insofar as it affects our interests.

Sun Oct 28 05:12:25
You are asking us to restructure the National Health Service to open it up to your medical services industry.

I'd say this is a great example of why we need the heft the EU provides.

In extremis, we could survive losing the Falklands (and it's not like you helped last time, prioritising relations with Latin America).

Being forced to end our social healthcare on the other hand would be catastrophic.

Sun Oct 28 05:12:46
Sun Oct 28 06:50:28
The Brits didn't even inform Reagan they were going to war with Argentina until their fleet set sail
Sun Oct 28 07:45:51
Just what help did Britain need in taking back the Falklands? History shows that they recaptured the Islands without any need of aid from anyone.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Sun Oct 28 08:11:06

"The United States was concerned that a protracted conflict could draw the Soviet Union on Argentina's side,[36] and initially tried to mediate an end to the conflict through "shuttle diplomacy". However, when Argentina refused the U.S. peace overtures, U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that the United States would prohibit arms sales to Argentina and provide material support for British operations. Both Houses of the U.S. Congress passed resolutions supporting the U.S. action siding with the United Kingdom.[37]

The U.S. provided the United Kingdom with military equipment ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles.[38][39][40][41] President Ronald Reagan approved the Royal Navy's request to borrow the Sea Harrier-capable amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LPH-2) if the British lost an aircraft carrier. The United States Navy developed a plan to help the British man the ship with American military contractors, likely retired sailors with knowledge of Iwo Jima's systems."


Sun Oct 28 12:36:59

"The Brits didn't even inform Reagan they were going to war with Argentina until their fleet set sail"

Reagan was caught by surprise when the Brits set off to recapture their invaded territory?

Sun Oct 28 12:40:40

"Just what help did Britain need in taking back the Falklands? History shows that they recaptured the Islands without any need of aid from anyone."

It doesn't matter what help they needed. A carrier group and an amphibious group should have gone along. It likely would have ended it without a shot being fired.

Sun Oct 28 13:14:46

It cost 250 dead and the loss of several ships.

US support would likely mean not having to fit at all, or aircover that would have prevented the loss of any ships.
Sun Oct 28 13:17:52
Anyway, the past is the past.

When it comes to trade, there's no substitute to the UK being a member of the EU.

America takes a business-is-business approach. As will the EU and China.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Sun Oct 28 14:42:35

The business of America is business.

~President Calvin Coolidge.

show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share