Guided Missile

Sorry, I was wrong. Imperial College, London has today claimed that Brexit will cause 12,400 people to die from heart attacks and strokes. That and the shortage of Mars bars has finally persuaded me that leaving the EU is a bad move.

The Geneva-based official who spoke to POLITICO on condition of anonymity said the idea for a 10-year deal that set tariffs at zero was gaining ground. “What’s important for you to take away is there is not a great swell of bitterness towards the British in Geneva,” the official said. “The attitude is nothing like what it it is Brussels. I don't think anyone wants to see trade disrupted between WTO members." The official added that an interim agreement that allowed existing tariff-free trade to continue is likely to be accepted by the "vast majority" of WTO members. "Nothing precludes a member challenging anything, but you have to show some injury — that you are materially worse off — for it not to be spurious," he said. "It’s hard to see how that might be the case." Trade experts in London express a similar view. "Zero-for-zero tariffs could be agreed to cover the interim," said Shanker Singham, chair of the Legatum Institute's Special Trade Commission on trade. "If we are not able to get a comprehensive free-trade agreement in two years, which everybody assumes we won’t, we will have at least got quite far down the track on what interim measures are necessary. It’s quite hard to see how no interim measures will be agreed." "Under WTO rules you can’t say you are going to have zero-for-zero until a deal is struck, but you can say for a limited amount of time," he continued. "WTO will allow it if both sides are negotiating a free trade deal.” He said there would be a lot of pressure around the world for the EU and the U.K. to settle terms —such as from the Japanese, for example, whose supply chains would be threatened by tariffs.

The Telegraph carry this story which lends weight to the Article XXIV approach, here.

10 year Free Trade Agreement with the EU from March 29th appears feasible under WTO rules (Article XXIV). It's been under consideration by the UK for some time. Interesting article below: Doesn't appear to help us on services, but might be a legal way to a FTA with the EU, outside a customs union.

Deutsche Bank to be bailed out today with QIF money, just like Barclays were and likely to be forced to merge with Commerzbank. Only way the Qatari's could save their investment. For those working for Deutsche Bank, I'd get out pdq. In addition to your bonuses being shot to f***, just wait until the money laundering comes out in the wash.

The thing with zombies is they sometimes look like they are alive. Deutsche Bank went t!ts up when I said it would, but with a bank too big to fail, the Germans are making sure it twitches occasionally. As far as Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece, their economies have also gone t!ts up. Italy, the biggest of the lot, is bankrupt. It's just that the EU can't afford to admit it.

Nuclear war fear over Y2K bug 19 December 1999 Read all about it, here...

I loved this part of the article: I stopped reading after this cr@p...

...and why do none of them want the UK to leave.

Mummy, why do most countries in the EU not want to leave...

The Heath government accepted on our behalf a permanent elevation of about 15% in food prices as part of the cost of entering the EEC. And this elevation of prices has persisted, with a more recent estimate that the price of food in the UK is at least 17% more expensive than it would be outside the EU (Gerard Lyons and Liam Halligan, Clean Brexit, Policy Exchange, January 2017, p10.) So, effectively, we pay to import more expensive food than we would if we were outside the EU. Why would the French farmers bother to be more efficient when they are paid to not have to? So, net contributors and spongers:

It's hard not to insult you when the WTO rules as they apply post Brexit are explained in the links I posted, but as you can't be bothered to read them, I'll explain. We can apply whatever tariffs we chose, up to the maximum allowed under WTO rules. Whatever level we chose, we have to impose the same tariff levels to MFN's (Most Favoured Nations), unless it is with a nation with which we have a trade agreement, where the tariffs are determined in that agreement. Countries usually impose tariffs when they seek to protect their domestic producers. In the case of oranges, there is no reason to impose the EU level of tariffs on imported oranges, for instance, which means that we charge zero tariffs on Spanish oranges, as we do at the moment, but we then have to charge zero to MFN's which are likely to have more efficient orange producers, thus our costs go down. So, we are leaving an area that is laughingly called a free trade area, when it should be called a protectionist trade area, which uses both tariffs and regulatory barriers to protect, for instance, inefficient French farmers. The cheaper food we will enjoy will benefit the low income families more than the middle class liberals like you. It is just, like you, most are not clever enough to see through the EU and believe all they read in the Guardian. Now, back on ignore for being lazy and thick....

After Brexit and in the event of a no deal, the UK will not have to charge tariffs on anything unless we want to. So, in the case of oranges, for instance, where we have no domestic production, why would we impose tariffs to protect Spanish growers? We will eliminate the EU imposed 16% tariff on oranges and pay less to the most efficient orange growers, probably those from Brazil or Florida unless the Spanish are more efficient. I know this freedom may be difficult for you to understand, but your condition is known as the Stockholm Syndrome, which you and shurlock will recover from eventually.

You realise that Brexit won, mate? I think you're the guy in denial. The analyses I quoted were comparing no deal with Mays deal. Oh, and a second referendum hope you were clinging to has been flushed down the pan, so best face it. We're leaving...

A more recent paper that describes the benefits of a "no deal" Brexit can be found here. I was particularly interested in the economic analysis of the potential opportunities described by Roger Bootle. He is one of the City of London’s best-known economists. He is Chairman of Capital Economics, which he founded in 1999, and an Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries. From 1998 to 2017 Roger was a Specialist Adviser to the House of Commons Treasury Committee. He was formerly Group Chief Economist of HSBC and, under the previous Conservative government, he was appointed one of the Chancellor’s panel of Independent Economic Advisers, the so-called ‘Wise Men’. In 2012, Roger and a team from Capital Economics won the Wolfson Prize, the second biggest prize in Economics after the Nobel. He appears to agree with Martin Howe, QC, who I quoted above. All in all, a well balanced article from a number of perspectives and a relief from the usual uninformed cr@p from the liberal media.

Typical clueless ad hominem attack. It is always better to tackle the ball, rather than the player. Now, rather than listening to James Delingpole, who is obviously not an expert on tariffs, or even worse, Dominic Grieve, QC, who you'd go to, if you wanted legal advice on Occupational Health & Safety ("i.e. an ambulance chaser"), I have always listened to those best qualified. I have personal experience with 8, New Square, a chambers who specialise in IP law. In particular, to advance this particular argument, the go-to guy there is Martin Howe, QC, whose wide-ranging EU law practice focuses on free movement of goods and services and EU regulatory law. So, for those that are interested, he published an interesting article here, back in August, 2018, which explained why the UK would be better off under WTO rules. Introduction: It's worth reading the whole article. He normally charges £5,000 a day, for advice Conclusion:

Alex Salmond charged with two counts of attempted rape as he faces 14 offences Jeez...

Chukka Khan't...

In case you don't know who I'm talking about, he's an RT presenter:

Meanwhile, in Italy, this article describes their view of the EU:

Being a member of the EU and the GFA being "valid" is no guarantee that there won't be sectarian violence in Ireland, Northern Ireland or mainland Britain, you moron.

The famous B&Q speech prior to the referendum:

This is what you posted: Do you have any other terrorist organisations or countries, you think the UK should surrender it's sovereignty to?

So, the British government should moderate their Brexit plans, to prevent the Real IRA from setting off car bombs in the UK?

I can't help thinking about the tweet I quoted earlier in the thread: Given the two quotes below, maybe the above tweet was on the money.