Scarpas fit me quite well too @wild edges and @steephill - because my feet are narrow towards the back/heels, but it does depend on the model. My right foot is a bit deformed, after having a very large, clumsy horse standing on it many decades ago, and my winter boots are Scarpas, but they're wide enough to accommodate it. My recent boots are cheap Hi Tecs. Normally not something I'd buy, but I knew I'd need a new pair when I got back out walking 5/6 years ago, and read a review of them by someone who tested them for a living. They're built on the same last as Meindls, and made in the same factory. Everything was slightly cheaper [weight of leather etc] but they were light, and very comfortable. They were also half price as well [even better ] so I felt it was well worth it in case my knees didn't last. They gave me three full years of regular hills, and even take crampons without giving way. Can't fault them, so I bought another pair when those started to slacken a bit too much. Â
It's a place where beautiful isn't enough of a word....
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
That's fine - the implication from the gov (brexiteers) though was that no deal and WTO wasn't an issue anyway (with the EU if no deal was the final outcome) - so our ability to trade outside the EU under the same conditions wouldn't also then be an issue. I'm not sure that it was made plain enough that we could trade outside the EU while being within the EU - maybe I misjudge how the 'country' perceived our membership of the EU and its restrictions in that area.
Edited to add: 60% of our trade was EU and with countries where the EU had trade deals (so 49% inside EU, 11% non-EU).
The issue then is raised of the safeguards - where will 'random' trade deals leave the UK with regards to standards - environment, employment, animal welfare? Only time will tell if we'll up the standards or drop them to secure deals.
I have never understood this business of trade deals. If I want to buy something from France why can't I just place an order, make the payment, and wait for them to send it to me? Why does the government have to negotiate a "deal" with the EU to make it possible?
Scarpas fit me quite well too @wild edges and @steephill - because my feet are narrow towards the back/heels, but it does depend on the model. My right foot is a bit deformed, after having a very large, clumsy horse standing on it many decades ago, and my winter boots are Scarpas, but they're wide enough to accommodate it. My recent boots are cheap Hi Tecs. Normally not something I'd buy, but I knew I'd need a new pair when I got back out walking 5/6 years ago, and read a review of them by someone who tested them for a living. They're built on the same last as Meindls, and made in the same factory. Everything was slightly cheaper [weight of leather etc] but they were light, and very comfortable. They were also half price as well [even better ] so I felt it was well worth it in case my knees didn't last. They gave me three full years of regular hills, and even take crampons without giving way. Can't fault them, so I bought another pair when those started to slacken a bit too much. Â
My feet are narrow at the heels as well, but with high-ish arches and wide-ish toes. Also at the small end of the size range so most of the chain outdoor gear shops have nothing suitable. Last time I needed new heavy-duty leather boots I went to a specialist place, tried on dozens of pairs with a really helpful young man doing all the fetching, unboxing, putting them all back afterwards etc, and ended up with Zamberlan (which I had thought would be too narrow at the front). For lighter fabric/goretex boots (and walking sandals) I like Keen but only if I can get them at a decent discount. I have some Merrells but they're not very supportive, not much more than trainers really.
Doncaster, South Yorkshire. Soil type: sandy, well-drained
@JennyJ - Zamberlans are quite often quoted as a good boot if you have really tricky feet. There's a chap on the walking site I use who swear by them. He can't get anything to fit him otherwise. I have quite flat feet, and the Merrells I've had in the past have been fine, especially the ones with a high percentage of leather, which the old ones were. I find all Goretex shoes/boots stretch too quickly. I had a pair of Raichle boots [which are Scarpas] but they were on their last legs when I got back walking, and were doing more damage than good. I had to resort to my winter boots to stop the endless blisters and rubs, much to the amusement of a chap I met when out one day I have a pair of Tivo sandals, but there's no chance of me wearing them on a hillÂ
It's a place where beautiful isn't enough of a word....
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
I have never understood this business of trade deals. If I want to buy something from France why can't I just place an order, make the payment, and wait for them to send it to me? Why does the government have to negotiate a "deal" with the EU to make it possible?
Tax and protection. And tax. And money, and selfishness, and tax. Did I mention tax? Have a read of this:
To use an example, if you want a BMW next year and there's no trade deal, the list price of the car increases by 10%. You will pay 10% of the value of the car in tax to the EU, above and beyond paying sales tax in the UK (actually, the car will me 10% more expensive and the dealer repays the tax, but you get the point). These are WTO rules - like a basic framework for how WTO treaty countries should "behave" as "favored nations".
Without WTO rules, anything could change at any time. Car exports could be 10% taxed tomorrow, and 90% tax the day after. This is how it used to work before world war 2, and is what created trade wars. If you tax your steel industry at 20% and I tax mine at 10%, your companies are going to buy my cheaper steel. Your steel workers lose their jobs, and everyone gets annoyed. You retaliate by taxing cotton exports to me at 50%, and I don't really have a cotton industry, so now my citizens get punished because they can't buy cheap clothes. And so forth.
(It also works in reverse - I'm not happy about your cheap steel so I put a 50% tariff on it, and now your steel workers lose their jobs, etc...)
So it gives a basic framework for global trade. There's absolutely nothing stopping you from buying from one of the 20 or so non-WTO country like Eritrea or Monaco. You just have to follow the specific rules for that country. Monaco is pretty reliable, Eritrea is less so. You can see the problems... This principle applies to standards too - I can't simply make cheap knockoff items to low standards because I still have to meet the minimum WTO standards.
The WTO rules try to create a basic framework that is fair-ish for everyone. But really, nobody wants WTO rules with key trading partners.
This is where trade deals come in. Because the EU knows we buy a lot of German cars, they want that trade to continue. They know that making UK citizens pay an extra 10% tax on a new BMW isn't great for Germany, and they know that UK citizens will want cheaper cars. They also know EU citizens love pork pies.Â
So the EU says, "here, we'll do you a deal, we'll have zero tariff/tax when we sell German cars to you, but in return we want zero tariff on pork pies". We shake hands and everyone is happy.
But theres a lot more than cars and pork pies up for sale. Making trade agreements reduces prices for consumers, and increases sales/profits for business, and therefore more TAX. This is part of the proven economic principle that when you reduce taxation, you actually gain more tax revenue.
So we want to get as much as we can agreed in our trade deal, eventually removing all tariffs and achieving "frictionless trade" status. This is where all parties adhere to the same principles, protections, standards, and remove tariffs because it's supposedly a level playing field. I'm skipping all the common agricultural policy stuff for now.
As part of the EU, the UK was forced to abide by EC rules so that this frictionless trade could continue within the EU. Now that the UK has left, it has the right to dictate exactly what type of trade agreement it wants.
And this is where the conflict happens, because as part of the deal the EU wants things that the UK won't give away (e.g.fishing rights), and vice versa.Â
The EU is also nervous and wants to lock the UK into a regulatory deal because they will have a modern western well regulated economy on their doorstep, who could simply and easily undercut the EU by making taxes lower and removing some legislation, much like how the UK government has confirmed it will remove "nuisance tariffs" of 1% or 2% tax on random stupid things.
And underpinning it all is tax and greed. The EU doesn't want to give the UK any advantage - and why would they, because it will directly translate to lost tax revenue. The UK wants maximum advantage, of course.
Nonetheless trade between EU member states and the UK is so significant that neither side can walk away, so this will all sort itself out.
It's all a lot more complicated than that, but hopefully that explains a bit.
...but not all tax.. To be competitive you need a playing field that's at least level - so if someone has naff working conditions and can pay their workers 2p a day, then their goods will be cheaper than what you can produce. Now that's fine if you don't have the same industry - but if you do, you don't want to import those goods or else you'll end up potentially killing you're own sector. So pay, conditions, standards (no point making cars that can't be used due to emissions regs, electrical items that blow your main fuse, items that don't have standard threads, sizes etc - even defining what certain words mean - ie what is chocolate - how much cocoa should it have?) across employment, pay, animal welfare and environmental issues all then start to play a part. The EU has rules covering all of that that we as a part of it, abided by. Now, in the short term, we've adopted those regs(part of the repeal bill I think), but it's now up to our gov to decide what those regs are and if we want to be a beacon to the world or drag our standards down to compete.
It becomes a minefield. For a fair few years we had input into how the standards and condition were defined for circa 600 million people, now we can decide for 60 million.
It's odd though as with 600 million people, the EU should be able to negotiate better deals across the world - as any country with any sense would want access to 600 million rather than 60 million (of roughly the same spending power) - much like everyone wants access now to India and China as their economies change and they have 'richer' people who can and will spend. But what benefit does dealing with the UK's 60 million have over the 600 million, unless we offer something in return? So what has the UK to offer that the EU doesn't? ... that's the question. Plus, if we want to continue to trade with the EU (49% of our exports) we will have to adopt their standards anyway (or better) - no point making cars in Sunderland if they can't be driven in Belgium eh? No point calling something 'chocolate' in this country if it can't be called the same in France...no point breeding cattle in a certain way if that's against EU regs and you can't then export them ... no point catching all that fish in the new UK waters, if that fish can't be sold in the European markets....so on and so forth.
The trade deals have to define the standards adopted by the parties. Hence why the EU is concerned about borders - if we now do a deal with the US for 'x', that has standards that differ from the EU - which we can now do -Â the EU is concerned that we may 'pass on' those goods into their markets.
There was an interesting doc that the House of Lords put out back in 2015/16 (or somewhere around there) I think that talked about the 10's of thousand of pages of laws and regs on the UK law books that were EU derived - that would at some point have to be dealt with.
@steveTu regarding the market size, I think this is somewhat of a fallacy. The EU isn't a single homogenous entity in this context, it's simply a standard gateway to 27 countries, each with their own culture, economy and citizenry, and this has been at the core of many EU challenges. Yes, the EU may have 500 million citizens (minus the UK), but that's rarely the addressable market. For example, if you are a fermented fish manufacturer, your market is the nordic states as there's not much interest in Spain etc. Simply having access via a trade deal doesn't quite mean as much when your market is so fragmented.
As for why a deal would happen. The UK is the 6th largest economy in the world. In the EU only Germany is larger, and economic growth has gone backwards for the 3 years there. Trade with the UK accounts for 10% of German GDP, 3% of Spain GDP, 4% of France GDP and so on.
Anyone really believe that a) Germany and the other prime trading countries would accept tariffs, and b) any nation would look at the UK and think "nope, not worth it?"
Incidentally out of the top 10 economies, the EU only has a free trade agreement with Canada and a partial deal with India.
And yes, the EU is concerned about protectionism and tax, with goods sneaking over the Irish border. Of course anyone who has driven to the border and seen the petrol tankers parked up in lay bys, dispensing cheap gas to avoid UK taxes, may chuckle at that.Â
Posts
My recent boots are cheap Hi Tecs. Normally not something I'd buy, but I knew I'd need a new pair when I got back out walking 5/6 years ago, and read a review of them by someone who tested them for a living. They're built on the same last as Meindls, and made in the same factory. Everything was slightly cheaper [weight of leather etc] but they were light, and very comfortable. They were also half price as well [even better
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
My feet are narrow at the heels as well, but with high-ish arches and wide-ish toes. Also at the small end of the size range so most of the chain outdoor gear shops have nothing suitable. Last time I needed new heavy-duty leather boots I went to a specialist place, tried on dozens of pairs with a really helpful young man doing all the fetching, unboxing, putting them all back afterwards etc, and ended up with Zamberlan (which I had thought would be too narrow at the front). For lighter fabric/goretex boots (and walking sandals) I like Keen but only if I can get them at a decent discount. I have some Merrells but they're not very supportive, not much more than trainers really.
https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/07/28/a-real-beginners-guide-to-tariffs-and-the-wto/
I have quite flat feet, and the Merrells I've had in the past have been fine, especially the ones with a high percentage of leather, which the old ones were. I find all Goretex shoes/boots stretch too quickly. I had a pair of Raichle boots [which are Scarpas] but they were on their last legs when I got back walking, and were doing more damage than good. I had to resort to my winter boots to stop the endless blisters and rubs, much to the amusement of a chap I met when out one dayÂ
I have a pair of Tivo sandals, but there's no chance of me wearing them on a hillÂ
I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45112872
To use an example, if you want a BMW next year and there's no trade deal, the list price of the car increases by 10%. You will pay 10% of the value of the car in tax to the EU, above and beyond paying sales tax in the UK (actually, the car will me 10% more expensive and the dealer repays the tax, but you get the point). These are WTO rules - like a basic framework for how WTO treaty countries should "behave" as "favored nations".
Without WTO rules, anything could change at any time. Car exports could be 10% taxed tomorrow, and 90% tax the day after. This is how it used to work before world war 2, and is what created trade wars. If you tax your steel industry at 20% and I tax mine at 10%, your companies are going to buy my cheaper steel. Your steel workers lose their jobs, and everyone gets annoyed. You retaliate by taxing cotton exports to me at 50%, and I don't really have a cotton industry, so now my citizens get punished because they can't buy cheap clothes. And so forth.
(It also works in reverse - I'm not happy about your cheap steel so I put a 50% tariff on it, and now your steel workers lose their jobs, etc...)
So it gives a basic framework for global trade. There's absolutely nothing stopping you from buying from one of the 20 or so non-WTO country like Eritrea or Monaco. You just have to follow the specific rules for that country. Monaco is pretty reliable, Eritrea is less so. You can see the problems... This principle applies to standards too - I can't simply make cheap knockoff items to low standards because I still have to meet the minimum WTO standards.
The WTO rules try to create a basic framework that is fair-ish for everyone. But really, nobody wants WTO rules with key trading partners.
This is where trade deals come in. Because the EU knows we buy a lot of German cars, they want that trade to continue. They know that making UK citizens pay an extra 10% tax on a new BMW isn't great for Germany, and they know that UK citizens will want cheaper cars. They also know EU citizens love pork pies.Â
So the EU says, "here, we'll do you a deal, we'll have zero tariff/tax when we sell German cars to you, but in return we want zero tariff on pork pies". We shake hands and everyone is happy.
But theres a lot more than cars and pork pies up for sale. Making trade agreements reduces prices for consumers, and increases sales/profits for business, and therefore more TAX. This is part of the proven economic principle that when you reduce taxation, you actually gain more tax revenue.
So we want to get as much as we can agreed in our trade deal, eventually removing all tariffs and achieving "frictionless trade" status. This is where all parties adhere to the same principles, protections, standards, and remove tariffs because it's supposedly a level playing field. I'm skipping all the common agricultural policy stuff for now.
As part of the EU, the UK was forced to abide by EC rules so that this frictionless trade could continue within the EU. Now that the UK has left, it has the right to dictate exactly what type of trade agreement it wants.
And this is where the conflict happens, because as part of the deal the EU wants things that the UK won't give away (e.g.fishing rights), and vice versa.Â
The EU is also nervous and wants to lock the UK into a regulatory deal because they will have a modern western well regulated economy on their doorstep, who could simply and easily undercut the EU by making taxes lower and removing some legislation, much like how the UK government has confirmed it will remove "nuisance tariffs" of 1% or 2% tax on random stupid things.
And underpinning it all is tax and greed. The EU doesn't want to give the UK any advantage - and why would they, because it will directly translate to lost tax revenue. The UK wants maximum advantage, of course.
Nonetheless trade between EU member states and the UK is so significant that neither side can walk away, so this will all sort itself out.
It's all a lot more complicated than that, but hopefully that explains a bit.
As for why a deal would happen. The UK is the 6th largest economy in the world. In the EU only Germany is larger, and economic growth has gone backwards for the 3 years there. Trade with the UK accounts for 10% of German GDP, 3% of Spain GDP, 4% of France GDP and so on.
Anyone really believe that a) Germany and the other prime trading countries would accept tariffs, and b) any nation would look at the UK and think "nope, not worth it?"
Incidentally out of the top 10 economies, the EU only has a free trade agreement with Canada and a partial deal with India.
And yes, the EU is concerned about protectionism and tax, with goods sneaking over the Irish border. Of course anyone who has driven to the border and seen the petrol tankers parked up in lay bys, dispensing cheap gas to avoid UK taxes, may chuckle at that.Â