- 28 Jun 2016 22:05
#14696799
Rugoz you seem to misunderstand the simple fact that bigger in this case means more expensive for the UK, because they entry fee is related to the GDP. Far more important Switzerland and Norway had decades to establish their deals. The UK has neither the time nor a comparable bargaining position, because they would fall back on WTO treaty level. Concerning the Swiss deal which is mostly frozen on 1997 levels (which is of course not possible anymore). Far more important I would reccommend a closer look at the Swiss treaty. It includes free movement of all EU citizens and it means that the broad majority of the Swiss regulations are made in Brussel without any Swiss influence (!). Then there is the pressure on the financial sector in Switzerland, which can be expected both for the City and the tax paradises like the Channel Islands or Virgin Islands etc.
Concerning the trade agreements:
https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/conten ... -relations
and so on.
Oh, but wait: http://shanghaiist.com/2016/06/24/china ... sponse.php
They should have looked into this short profile: http://news.cbi.org.uk/business-issues/ ... deals-pdf/
Concerning the trade agreements:
https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/conten ... -relations
There have been recent bilateral government discussions between the UK and Australia, New Zealand, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Korea.
US, Canada and Mexico. The UK has bilateral trade relations with all three countries individually...
and so on.
Oh, but wait: http://shanghaiist.com/2016/06/24/china ... sponse.php
They should have looked into this short profile: http://news.cbi.org.uk/business-issues/ ... deals-pdf/