The official site ofthe Mayor of Londonand the London Assembly

Most goods and services traded worldwide under WTO rules are tariff free because hardly any country trades without agreements on some things and whilst the EU might set tariff rates on some things which it imports as high as they're allowed to under the rules, they'll have to reckon on the UK reciprocating, which will, because of the trade deficit, be to our material advantage overall. The reason that the average amount of tariffs are low is because you have to take into account the fact that there is so much that is tariff free. The agreed path since Uraguay is that tariff barriers must be reduced. You mention cars yet do not see why Nissan and Toyota are ignoring your kind of arguments and investing now in Britain. A ten percent tariff on Mercedes cars into Britain would be devastating to them as we are their largest market. And to Germany as they are one of their biggest businesses and exporters. We will get that deal!

We have a trade deficit with the EU, which means that any tariff placed upon any British export will,if reciprocated, mean more income to Britain, as a whole, than to the EU. It is a question of simple mathematics.
The average tariff on WTO rules is around 3/4 percent. The pound has depreciated more than that, which makes them irrelevant in any case.

The British taxpayer has been fleeced by the EU for forty years. I don't think the odd 'bung' to a company (if,that is, you can prove it happened at all) will matter too much to the taxpayer. Certainly not to me.
Companies make all sorts of 'plans' for all sorts of scenarios. It means very little and is mostly bluff. In much the same way as 'Project Fear' turned out to be.
I refer you to Allister Heath's list of companies that have actually carried out their plans, such as Dyson, already making investments in Britain. The list is endless and growing. I prefer listening to them as they have done it rather than taking about doing something.
I assume you voted to remain, as you wouldn't be so negative.

The UK would pay tariffs on goods and services it exported into the EU but not the 3-4% you suggest. Since the UK is likely to be awarded ‘most favoured nation’ rates, punitive taxes are likely to be avoided. Regardless, inflation is likely to rise significantly encumbered by a falling value of the pound and WTO tariffs ranging from 32 per cent on wine, to 9.8 per cent on cars and 4.1 per cent on liquefied natural gas. The tariff on one of the UK staple products (wheat products) is 12.8 per cent. As such your use of an ‘average’ is dubious. From which source do you take this figure and how relevant is it to the basket of goods used for inflation?

There is a significant and ever growing list of companies closing or planning to close their UK offices and heading for the EU or the US.
You quote the optimism and investment of Toyota but you fail to mention that their £200m investment was conditional on a £20m ‘bung’ from the government. The British taxpayer will pay for this. Whilst the British taxpayer is subsidizing this particular car maker to the tune of 10% it is unrealistic to expect the taxpayer to accept a significant hike in taxes to subsidize each and every other company now threatening to leave the UK.
And yet if unemployment in the car sector is not to skyrocket we might now have to. Investment commitments in the UK automotive sector last year totalled £1.66bn, just two-thirds of the £2.5bn in 2015. Toyota is in the minority.
Microsoft UK’s Owen Larter said the company was contemplating building and expanding data centres elsewhere in Europe following the vote
Goldman Sachs is working on a strategy for moving half its London workforce (3,000 jobs) to Europe and New York
HSBC's chief executive, Stuart Gulliver also said he was preparing to move 1,000 staff from London to Paris.
UBS's chief Andrea Orcel says the bank 'will definitely' have to move jobs from London
Nearly 40 per cent of US businesses with a base in the UK say they are considering moving elsewhere in the EU because of Brexit, according to a report, warning that the vote to leave could also hit trade relations between Britain and America.
The survey by international law firm Gowling WLG also found that two-thirds of the 533 US firms polled said the UK’s vote to the leave the EU was already impacting investments choices in the country.
All of the above is in the public domain. Rather that deride others you maybe better advised to read the newspapers

Which businesses are 'moving' to Europe? Toyota has just announced new investment in Britain and there are many many others already committed to invest in Britain.
Banks can easily open a branch in Ireland, for example, if they want so called 'passporting rights', which are almost certain to be given as part of the Brexit negotiations anyway, as European based businesses need the financial expertise that only London can give.
You clearly do not understand business. We have a trade deficit with the EU as a whole and any tariffs imposed, if reciprocated, would mean some £10 Billion or more additional income for Britain. The average tariff on WTO rules only amount to 3-4%!

The EU, contrary to the wishes of the Commission, is not yet a single state. This means that the overall percentage of trade is irrelevant. The key point is that each nation of the EU has its own percentile of trade with the UK. Each nation,therefore, will exert its own pressure upon the EU negotiators in order not to undermine its various businesses and,therefore,jobs. If you want to talk about the gains or losses of each side in the negotiations then overall the Uk will benefit if WTO rules are applied because of the trade deficit that we have with the EU.
As for the potential trade deal with the USA in relation to the NHS,that will be a matter for the elected governments of both sides to decide according to their own democratic process's. You may not agree with the outcome but it would at least be arrived at democratically.

I don't get that - surely our trade with the EU is a tiny proportion of the EU total trade. And any new trade deal with the EU is going to have to be ratified by each of the member countries. This will take a long time, years during which UK businesses will be hit by the tariffs. In some industries, where manufacturing involves goods moving to and fro between businesses in different countries, the cumulated tariffs embodied in the final products will result in very high prices. Including UK manufacturers in those processes will not be a viable proposition for many EU based companies. And what sort of concessions is the UK going to have to make to get reasonable trade deals with all the countries that have not forgotten how tough the UK was on them over their EU trade deals? Will we be putting the NHS at risk in order to get a decent trade deal with the US?

Which business's and why? The environment for business is much better in the UK than, say, France and that will remain the situation post Brexit. Trade will continue and even WTO rules mean that, because of our trade deficit with the EU, we will earn more as a country than will the EU.

As to using local workers - our education system is so unfit for purpose that we don't produce enough skilled, intelligent local workers. The government does not want to fund a decent education system. People do not want to pay more tax for funding the NHS, education, etc.

And a happy Christmas to us all!

In our democratic country everyone is entitled to their opinion. My opinion is as valuable as yours & that is as it should be with due respect expected by every individual. The idea of staying in the EU for me would be that it would be "total idiocy" but that doesn't matter, or does it? Don't believe the economy was a factor for most of the people who voted leave. There were other more important issues which led people to vote the way they did. If the UK economy slumps then people who voted to leave will 'grin & bear it' & it won't change their minds!
To state that not one of them would be able to fetch the correct paper for you is an attitude that seems to have emerged from people who voted to remain that if someone doesn't share your view or opinion they must be relegated to the ranks of the stupid or ignorant - good luck with that approach!

That's how our government solves problem of illegal migration - give them passport and there are no illegals any more.

Those illegal get asylum like the man who walked through Eurotunnel.

It's more interesting what percentage of benefit takers are immigrants :)

If you were born abroad you are immigrant. Maybe it is different if you've been living here for 50 years or just 5 but still you're migrant.

Part of the problem with jobs is that many bosses prefer workers from overseas who are more prepared to put up with lower pay and worse hours and conditions. This is not the fault of the EU, as the government can legislate against zero hours, put up the minimum wage, etc, but has not tightened up on these enough. Also, many companies, to maintain international competitiveness, need to take skilled staff from an international pool of suitable workers. The UK is not training enough workers, and not training people to high enough standards. It is cheaper to import trained workers than it is to train UK workers.

You have to be a UK resident to get free NHS treatment.

But what was it, and when?

A 'threat' of something is not a loss of sovereignty. That is the 'reality' of which you speak. Otherwise Wallonia would not be able to prevent the trade deal between the EU and Canada. Wallonia is a region of Belgium which has a degree of sovereignty allowing it to block this deal. There is absolutely no evidence in anything you have said so far that backs your argument of a loss of sovereignty. As I repeatedly have said, you are on the losing side of an argument, that is all. Even the rest of the EU is in favour of this deal and it is not known for its love of free trade deals other than within its own customs union, which, of course 'in reality' is not free trade at all but 'managed trade' with tariffs to the outside world. The fact of the matter is that, despite what you think, governments around the world want trade deals which include both so called 'transnationals' and 'nationals' that are in the interests of both sides and all. Trade happens in any case, with or without governments agreeing anything at all, unless, of course, one includes North Korea! The freer, the better. By the way, the one thing that has put the most downward pressure on low skilled wages in the UK is 'free movement of people' across nations without sovereignty, which has nothing to do with trade at all.

In reality, the threat of being sued in the secret and unaccountable tribunals alone is sufficient to make governments back down and not implement domestic legislation that would benefit public health or welfare. The ISDS clauses are being used this way as a deliberate strategy by transnationals to ensure that wages are kept down, that environmental protection legislation is not enacted, and so-on. Governments have been sued or threatened with it, as have local councils, the latter eg when local democratic processes result in planning permission for highly polluting mining being refused. Constitutional lawyers and judges regard ISDS clauses as a loss of soveriegnty, both parliamentary and judicial.

Well, certainly with the European Communities Act 1972 and subsequent 'treaties', our Parliament has given away sovereignty, by which I mean that it has relinquished the right to legislate contrary to the superior jurisdiction of the EU institutions. Yet, the same cannot be said of trade agreements, as Parliament will, upon leaving the EU, regain the sovereignty which it lost, giving it the right to overturn any trade agreement it wishes, as these agreements are not legally binding upon a sovereign parliament. They are merely binding whilst they are active, as with our membership of the EU. One parliament cannot bind a future one. Your proposition that any trade agreement hands 'power over our legislation' is a false analogy. The only 'power' handed over is the power of an independent arbitrator to arbitrate between a company with a grievance and a government. The parliament of the day can legislate at any time it sees fit, whilst a company, or even a foreign government, will need to sue in order to obtain a judgement against our government and, therefore, Parliament. We will see where that leads us if and when it happens!

It is the government signing away sovereignty, handing power over our legislation to other states and to transnationals. And in order for people to campaign against these clauses being included in trade agreements, first the information about each of them has to be made available, which it is not. Therefore there is neither parliamentary nor popular democractic control. I am not a fan of the EU.

You've made my point. 'the UK and other countries have signed up to trade agreements'. That is the elected governments NOT the 'transnationals'. Sovereignty resides with the parliaments of those nations that are signatories. If you don't like the agreements then you can vote for another party who promises to change them. That is why this scenario that you paint is not and can never be a 'loss of sovereignty'. Again, as I have explained, you are merely on the wrong side of the democratic decisions freely made. You may argue against and campaign against these trade agreements that you do not agree with but that is another matter. I wish you good luck in your attempts but I think you will fail, as you have failed to persuade the people to stay in the EU.

In the real world, the UK and other countries have signed up to trade agreements, and continue to do so, that include ISDS clauses. And in the real world transnational corporations have sued and continue to sue any country that enacts legislation that either does or might negatively affect the profits of the transnationals. So anything that might affect future profits is actionable. The cost of defending these actions run into the millions of pounds, and the fines imposed by the secret kangeroo courts that preside over ISDS actions are staggeringly high. It is the taxpayers who have to pay of course, but countries avoid these costs by altering their legislation to suit the transnationals profit margins. I call this loss of sovereignty to transnationals. But perhaps you do not call it that. The UK has signed up to plenty of Bilateral Investment Treaties that include ISDS clauses. Something as simple as increasing the minimum wage or raising solar panel installation subsidies can result in a country being successfully sued for billions of pounds or whatever currency. This is loss of sovereignty.

People in European countries and MEPs successfully pushed for transparency over the TTIP in the EU, and successfully got improvements and alterations made to the proposed terms. People and MPs in the UK have been less successful in persuading UK government to bring in transparency for non-EU trade agreements. Herein lies the problem. Did your MP tell the people in his/her constituency his/her position on ISDS clauses in non-EU trade agreements when s/he was campaigning before the last election? Mine didn't. I don't care whether or not I am likely to be voting with a majority or not when I decide how to vote.

Who says that future trade agreements will be signed without recourse to Parliament? Not the Prime Minister. The Government has the democratic mandate to negotiate all manner of agreements, whether trade or otherwise but Parliament will inevitably debate the merits or otherwise of any agreement because the Opposition can force a debate, if necessary. The UK cannot be 'subservient' to any organisation unless the law says it can, so Parliament, as with our original application to join the Common Market, will make those decisions. We were subservient (in fact still are) to the institutions of the now EU but, of course, post Brexit we will cease to be. So, you see, no organisation can, as you say, 'control what legislation our elected government makes' because it is the Government that will be proposing that legislation and Parliament which legislates by simple majority, i.e. democratically.

How can there be 'transparency' by the Government, when it is not the Government that is negotiating TTIP? The EU bureaucracy is doing that, surely? They are not elected, of course. Basically, your gripe is that you did not vote with the majority, as evidenced by your reference to the minority parties in Parliament. They have a right to debate in Parliament with the Government but they do not, in a democracy, have the right to BE the Government. In the EU 'Parliament', it wouldn't matter if ALL of our MEP's voted against something because they are in a permanent minority, as are all other MEP's representing their countries. The EU is in a permanent state of anti-democracy.

Investor-State Dispute Settlements. The Tory government has already declined to exclude these in current trade agreements with non-EU countries. And it was our Tory government that supported keeping these agreements in the TTIP, while our Labour MEPs and their EU Socialist and Democrat EU MEP colleagues voted against them. The only reason the UK public cannot monitor the terms of the trade agreements signed in their name by the UK government is the lack of transparency.

Your first sentence does not make sense. The 'population' does not and cannot 'monitor' trade agreements between our elected government and foreign governments other than by parliamentary scrutiny. That cannot be done until an agreement in principle is put before it.
I do not understand your point about unelected officials signing away sovereignty. Perhaps you could give an example. I can say that MEP's do not have a democratic mandate, however, because those elected by one country cannot determine policy that is contrary to that set by the supra national body even though the people they represent wish them, be their own democratic processes, so to do. For example, UKIP in the European parliament cannot, even though they 'won' the European election, carry out any mandate given to them by the British people because they have no majority in that parliament and can never have, nor can any other party from any other member state. The EU would have to become a unitary state in order for its 'parliament' to fulfil that role. Finally, multi-national companies do not 'control' legislation in the UK. MP's may agree to implement policies which they ask for but Parliament will scrutinise any legislation brought forward. You are simply putting across a point of view which is not based in fact. You are right, however, to say that whilst we are members of the EU, 'other nation states can control what legislation our elected government makes' as we signed up to the system that allows it. Not for long, mercifully!

There are many attractions for businesses to be in the UK and way down the list is our membership of the EU! You're right that the universal language of English is much higher on the list than that EU membership I mentioned, yet our system of respect in law for intellectual ownership and property ownership is almost certainly even higher. Businesses can feel secure in the knowledge that, unlike in some countries, their assets will not be plundered by a corrupt state.

The UK will indeed be subservient to multinational corporations unless the population monitor the trade agreements that will be signed by UK officials without recourse to parliament or democratic public discussion. Why is it OK for 'simply government policy' to have unelected officials sign away sovereignty under ISDS clauses, when it is not OK have elected MEPs and representatives selected by the elected government make decisions in the EU? Why should multinational companies and other nation states control what legislation our elected government makes, and without the population even being informed about it? At least with the EU the information is freely available!

The fact is that so many things move so slowly in the UK; e.g:- the decision on runway expansion. This is just another example of an overcrowded part of the country. However just remember that one of the principal attractions for businesses to be in the UK is the almost universal use of English in the world.

The UK is not subservient to multinational corporations. Government is formed of the elected House of Commons. It is simply the policies pursued by the government of the day which you may believe to be 'subservient' when, in fact, they are simply government policy. We, the people, can vote for MP's who are free to be 'subservient' to whichever organisation they wish, whether it be a multinational corporation or the EU. It just so happens that the people have decided that enough is enough and they do not wish their parliament to be subservient to the EU anymore. There is no democracy in the EU but only supra-national government. A member state cannot democratically decide anything that is contrary to the wishes and 'laws' of the EU as a whole. This argument has been thrashed out time and again and the idea that the EU is in any way 'democratic' has been demolished by the actual vote of the people in the referendum. The people have decided that the EU is fundamentally undemocratic and want their democratic rights restored.

'A second one would be properly structured to prevent a borderline result from just over two thirds of the population'. Who says? You won't be framing it! You simply cannot accept the result. You are in denial. There are winners and losers from any and every plebiscite that has ever taken place since democracy was invented. You happen to be a loser this time and I am a winner. Next time it might be the other way around but one thing is for certain, NO country in the EU is sovereign and never will be. At least we have the opportunity to regain it.

'A second one would be properly structured to prevent a borderline result from just over two thirds of the population'. Who says? You won't be framing it! You simply cannot accept the result. You are in denial. There are winners and losers from any and every plebiscite that has ever taken place since democracy was invented. You happen to be a loser this time and I am a winner. Next time it might be the other way around but one thing is for certain, NO country in the EU is sovereign and never will be. At least we have the opportunity to regain it.

I do not understand why you prefer to have the UK subservient to unelected multinational corporations. The EU offers much in the way of democracy, in ways that ubercorporations do not.

A second one would be properly structured to prevent a borderline result from just over two thirds of the population. There seem to be a lot of Brexit supporters who will not seriously suffer if the economy does not thrive under Brexit. Some of us would be badly hit, and too many will be struggling to put food on the table and pay the rent. UK sovereignty is under far more threat than it has been with the UK being in the EU. Yet I doubt that those who claim they voted Brexit to save UK sovereignty will even bother to monitor the hundreds of trade agreements as each is negotiated to ensure that UK sovereign rights are not signed away in them via ISDS processes.

Yes, it does and we have a right to steer the direction it goes in.

Life moves on whether we want it to or not.

No, we should not simply move on. We should not because that is the view of fatalists. No, Rosemary, we should not simply roll over and accept a fate determined by politicians who set out to deceive. This week Boris Johnson was exposed, he who recently published an article stating that Brexit would be a mistake. Do we really want to put our fate in the hands of this charlatan motivated by a self serving interest. Farage is a liar. He owned up to that on morning TV the day after Brexit. Gove has a long history of poor decisions

To accept our fate is to do nothing. A week after Brexit 1500 staff at Lloyds lost their jobs a direct result, say Lloyds, of the Brexit vote. There have been others. Two months after the vote the pound is worth a great deal less than before - a direct result of a global perception that we as a nation will be weaker. Inflation is already on the rise and wages will not. There are strong signs that we are heading off the rails.

And Brexit hasn't even happened yet. Only the vote. If we do nothing then when we actually leave we can guarantee that what we have already seen will be exponentially worse.

So we should not just 'move on'. We should not just quit and let fate do unto us as fate sees fit. It is our patriotic duty to act, protect and thrive. You will recall the promised savings of £350m a week. Government declared this week that we might just have to continue paying into the Europe pot if we are to retain access to the single market. Brexit or no Brexit. They have to act in the interest of the country and if it is in Londons interest to have devolved powers and the ability to raise tax revenue then that is what we have to do.

Last week I was invited by a London based company to help them set up an off shore company. They are protecting their interests and I am sure they are not the only ones. Recently I transferred my pension fund off shore for the same reason. Given the weakening Pound, to do nothing would have seen my fund whither. I give a personal perspective to illustrate that we cannot ignore what is happening and will probably get worse.

I urge you and others to reconsider Abraham's comments again and to ask yourself is there a chance he might be right?

You didn't like the result of the referendum. Be honest, that's all there is to it. If there was a second one, as the unelected EU mafia would like, then if it went the other way, I and millions of others would be demanding a third one. How many do you want?

So you didn't like the result of the referendum, but life moves on.

'You can indeed force people to vote'. I thought you believed in democracy. That would be dictatorship, surely? What if a voter deliberately spoiled their ballot paper? Would they, in your world, be imprisoned? Abstention is a legitimate tool of the democratic process. Please stop qualifying the result of the referendum. You do not have sufficient knowledge to be able to do so. Nor does anyone. The result is the result. Get used to it or stop professing to be a democrat.

You can indeed force people to vote, and over something as serious as this, probably should. An issue this serious should not be decided on a simple majority. For a referendum with long term consequences, democracy is better served by using a supermajority, such as 60%. This ensures that factors such as the weather on voting day do not cause a result that in reality a significant majority do not want. On a simple majority vote with a close result, from only just over two thirds of voters, whichever way the vote goes, the other lot will never lie down and be quiet about it. With a supermajority vote the outcome is a clear representation of what the majority want.

'It was a badly designed referendum'. What you mean is that you didn't like the result! Be honest. 'Hardly the wishes of the whole'. You cannot force people to vote. That's not how it works. Everyone eligible to vote has the choice and those who abstain are indicating their wish to accept the verdict of the majority. It is their right to abstain and it does not invalidate the result in any way. Otherwise no election would be valid! It's not 'funny' in any way but, in fact, legitimate.

It was a badly designed referendum, with a result that reflected the wishes of barely half of those who voted. Hardly the wishes of the whole, especially as some of those who voted for Brexit afterwards said they did so only did so as a kind of shot across the bows of the establishment, and they did not actually want to leave the EU. Funny way to practice democracy.

When it comes to class, no, not the same people, not by a long chalk.

The UK reneged on those responsibilities some decades ago, hence New Zealand's ironic offer to provide the UK with trade agreement negotiators.

The EU is not responsible for Commonwealth countries. It's entirely separate.

The UK government has imposed stricter immigration rules for people coming from the Commonwealth in recent years. That has nothing to do with the EU.

Just as, the UK government has imposed austerity on people in Britain since 2010, which has nothing to do with the EU.

The EU has trade agreements with the CARICOM countries. We will now need to make new trade agreements with these countries, but I doubt the UK will be susidising sugar farmers in the Caribbean.

The EU has not been good for Commonwealth countries to whom it could be said we have far more responsibility than to EU countries.

For example, a sugar-beet farmer in Spain gets subsidies to produce his (expensive) sugar which disadvantages a sugar-cane farmer from the Caribbean. Where is the justice in that?

I'm not sure that it was a clear mandate to leave when you look at the number of Bregrets there were afterwards. 3.8% is not a massive majority. If 700,000 voters had voted differently we'd be staying. If EU nationals (who normally vote in general and local elections) had been allowed to vote, if 16-18 year-olds had been allowed to vote - the result could have been very different.

And, as I said, many people voted leave because they wanted more money for the NHS.

As for the economy, yes, at moment the pound is low so we're exporting more, and we have slightly higher employment but slower wage growth. The crucial thing is though, we haven't left yet. The banks haven't moved out of London, nor have the Japanese car firms and other big businesses. We still have trade agreements because we're still in the EU. And the Bank of England has been propping up the economy.

I agree with you about supporting unity and extending the hand of friendship. I would just extend it across the Channel as well. I don't see that there's any contradiction there - I don't have to choose between the rest of the UK and the people of the EU, of the people of the Commonwealth or elsewhere. We're all human beings.

The referendum was only advisory, but it was a clear mandate to Leave. Three months after the vote what have we got? Higher employment, more export sales, a record number of visitors. And a bumper Olympic games for Britain. There will be difficulties along the way to Leave, it won't all be good news, but the threats of economic Armageddon have no life in them. And all this talk of celebrating diversity? How about supporting unity and extending the hand of friendship to our fellow countrymen not living in London? We are all the same people, aren't we?

I have always voted in the EU elections, for UK MEPs. Using a ballot paper. The last time I did this was Thursday May 22, 2014. I voted Green, and gee, Green Jean Lambert got in as one of the eight London MEPs. There are parties to vote for, and independent candidates.

And that business about the accounts not being signed-off. Every year since 2007 they have been given a clean bill of health as being an accurate record of payments made. This is signed-off. But the European Court of Auditors also reports on the 'regularity' of the EU accounts - the degree to which they are free of significant errors. Signifcant means above 2%. In 2014 for eg the level of errors was 4.4%. Errors does not mean fraud or waste, it means payments made without rules being strictly followed. This is the aspect that people call the accounts not being signed off. It takes time, but the EU claims money back in these cases. So the EU accounts are signed off as being an accurate account of what was spent, and the report indicates where there were errors in how payments were made. These are then checked and money claimed back where necessary. The UK has a particularly complex way of doing its EU accounts, making it easy for the UK to delay making payments back when there are errors that require this. And the whole 2014 EU expenditure was apparently about the same as the UK spent on the NHS in 2014, to get it in perspective.