Current Affairs EU In or Out

[peteblue]

With respect mate. If. If. If.

What if’s. We will trade, or the U.K. and the EU will fall apart. We either will or will not do a trade deal. We will increase our RoW trade as this has been going up year by year anyway. We will stop sending money to the EU when we leave. We will raise money for the NHS through taxation. I’m not sure which but you have a problem with......

 

[roydo]

What if’s. We will trade, or the U.K. and the EU will fall apart. We either will or will not do a trade deal. We will increase our RoW trade as this has been going up year by year anyway. We will stop sending money to the EU when we leave. We will raise money for the NHS through taxation. I’m not sure which but you have a problem with......

The ones in your post. If If If.

Last time I looked we had trade agreements all over the globe. Now, unless you will enlighten me, we will have zero, unless, If If.

You have sold your grandkids down the river.

 

[davids]

Don’t be silly. The U.K. will be the EU’s largest trading partner, with a massive trade credit to boot. Of course we can sort out a trade deal without immigration requirements. The EU just has to get past the trying to make us fail scenario....

Hard for them to try to make the UK fail when they have no idea the final deal the UK are looking for.But then that just puts them in the same boat as the cabinet.

 

[peteblue]

The ones in your post. If If If.

Last time I looked we had trade agreements all over the globe. Now, unless you will enlighten me, we will have zero, unless, If If.

You have sold your grandkids down the river.

Zero. Where the hell did you get that from.

My granddaughter will do just fine thank you.....

 

[Joey66]

Ah, the beginning of reality starting to bite.

We can replace the EU trade GDP with "our own deals", and the cash we pay to the EU/Foreign Aid will right all the wrongs in the NHS/Social Care.

Without UK citizens paying for it.

Brilliant.

Really the overseas bill money is necessary, but not at the rate that it goes up and up - have a guess if the budget is not used in a financial year - it's handed to the EU for them to distribute - an old saying our money charity begins st home - by all means have comfortable aid in a fund, - if it is unused blow it helping the NHS, and our social care budgets
Or I'd that just common sense?.........

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Really the overseas bill money is necessary, but not at the rate that it goes up and up - have a guess if the budget is not used in a financial year - it's handed to the EU for them to distribute - an old saying our money charity begins st home - by all means have comfortable aid in a fund, - if it is unused blow it helping the NHS, and our social care budgets
Or I'd that just common sense?.........

Where have you got that supposed fact from? I.e. the one where we give the EU our overseas aid budget surplus?

 

[Joey66]

Where have you got that supposed fact from? I.e. the one where we give the EU our overseas aid budget surplus?

LBC....
Just googled it they control a fair bit of the funds from all members.....

 

[Bruce Wayne]

No mate. You are missing the point, UK/EU trade will continue and the only issue is what tariffs or not are put upon it. If it is free trade then we carry on as before but add additional RoW trade to our GDP that we develop. If we don’t get a free trade agreement with the EU then tariffs are applied both ways and the EU effectively subsidises the U.K. for the pleasure, due to the trade imbalance.

In terms of the NHS, the money we used to send to the EU plus additional revenues from Taxation will pay to improve the NHS. Of course if you don’t want to pay for the NHS then just say so.......either way the U.K. benefits.....

Pete, for such an experienced businessman I'm surprised by this insistence that 'trading with the world' is like a tap that is currently turned off that can be turned on. Companies don't go to the government for permission to sell/buy their widgets from China or Brazil. If there's a commercial imperative they'll be doing it already. All a trade deal does is make that trade easier by either removing tariffs on that trade, removing non-tariff barriers, or ideally both.

There seems an indelible focus by Brexiters on tariffs, when the reality of global trade is that non-tariff barriers are far more important as they govern things like standards and rules. It's this that makes the single market so valuable because those standards and rules are integrated more deeply than any other free trade agreement in the world.

The rationale you're espousing is that we're going to substitute trading partners in Europe whom we've developed deep relationships with (on account of the above standard rules and processes) and suddenly jump in with partners elsewhere that we haven't traded with before (despite nothing stopping us), just because this basic belief underpins the apparent value of Brexit.

You also seem to be continually overlooking the fact that a) immigration is hugely important to the wellbeing of our companies, and there is not a single company that doesn't want to be able to attract whatever talent it wants, whenever it wants. If you promoted free movement from all over the world then you'd have a (very good) point, but you don't, you continue to bang the controlled immigration troupe, as though Windrush et al haven't shown the government to be absolutely bloody clueless at 'managing' immigration, and b) that immigration isn't hugely valuable to our society, and c) that this whole stinking shitheap wasn't all about immigration and getting rid of foreigners.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It may interest you to know Pete, that the EU and India have been negotiating a trade deal since 2007. Some of the sticking points are around things like India's treatment of intellectual property, India’s duty and tariffs in areas of wine, spirits, dairy products and India’s protectionism of its automobile sectors amongst others, India has been concerned with EU’s heavy subsidy to its agro industry, imposition of temporary import restrictions, delay in recognizing India as data secure country and strict visa regime (you'll note this last point as it's exactly what India told May when she went there after the referendum).

The visa issue had recently prompted the India’s Commerce minister to say that the ‘visa issue sounds like non-tariff barriers in services sector’ and that UK is ‘no longer treating India as an old friend’. But yes, controlling immigration to 10% of existing levels and stuff.

It's also worth noting that many Indian companies use the UK as a launchpad into the EU, which is another thing we'll potentially lose out on. The various trade groups in India have strongly suggested that if free trade isn't agreed between UK and EU, they will move to the EU to avoid any of the costs associated.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Oh, and Pete, whilst we're on the subject of immigration - http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaaq0883

Does the arrival of asylum seekers lead to a deterioration in the economic performance and public finances of the European countries that host them? The answer is no, according to economists from the CNRS, Clermont-Auvergne University, and Paris-Nanterre University, who have estimated a dynamic statistical model based on 30 years of data from 15 countries in Western Europe. On the contrary, the economic impact tends to be positive as a proportion of the asylum seekers become permanent residents.

GDP per capita increases, the unemployment rate falls, and additional public expenditure is more than compensated by the increase in tax revenues, but, they are likely to speak with a funny accent, eat strange foods and possibly have brown faces, so I can understand the fear.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

The rationale you're espousing is that we're going to substitute trading partners in Europe whom we've developed deep relationships with (on account of the above standard rules and processes) and suddenly jump in with partners elsewhere that we haven't traded with before (despite nothing stopping us), just because this basic belief underpins the apparent value of Brexit.

India very cleary defined any post Brexit trade deal with them would mean huge concession on immigration and basically wants freedom of movement into the UK. Also there is hungry appetite and political populism in putting the wrongs of past colonial occupation very right indeed.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

LBC....
Just googled it they control a fair bit of the funds from all members.....

You either misheard or they misinformed you. As they don’t control our overseas aid budget or are handed any surplus.

They do however spend approx £1bn of what we pay the EU for our membership on overseas aid.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Pete, for such an experienced businessman I'm surprised by this insistence that 'trading with the world' is like a tap that is currently turned off that can be turned on. Companies don't go to the government for permission to sell/buy their widgets from China or Brazil. If there's a commercial imperative they'll be doing it already. All a trade deal does is make that trade easier by either removing tariffs on that trade, removing non-tariff barriers, or ideally both.

There seems an indelible focus by Brexiters on tariffs, when the reality of global trade is that non-tariff barriers are far more important as they govern things like standards and rules. It's this that makes the single market so valuable because those standards and rules are integrated more deeply than any other free trade agreement in the world.

The rationale you're espousing is that we're going to substitute trading partners in Europe whom we've developed deep relationships with (on account of the above standard rules and processes) and suddenly jump in with partners elsewhere that we haven't traded with before (despite nothing stopping us), just because this basic belief underpins the apparent value of Brexit.

You also seem to be continually overlooking the fact that a) immigration is hugely important to the wellbeing of our companies, and there is not a single company that doesn't want to be able to attract whatever talent it wants, whenever it wants. If you promoted free movement from all over the world then you'd have a (very good) point, but you don't, you continue to bang the controlled immigration troupe, as though Windrush et al haven't shown the government to be absolutely bloody clueless at 'managing' immigration, and b) that immigration isn't hugely valuable to our society, and c) that this whole stinking shitheap wasn't all about immigration and getting rid of foreigners.

You should know by know that Brexiteers don’t base their rhetoric on silly things like facts Bruce. Rational arguments are all so passé btw. No, those who are entrenched in the Brexit lie base their ‘logic’ (and I use that word very loosely) on their beliefs, it’s a belief based ideology mate. They believe that world trade will somehow miraculously open up and somehow plug the gap left by the loss of part of our trade with the EU, should we leave the SM and CU. Never mind the issues of distance, disparity in Labour costs, any potential free trade deal opening us to cheap unregulated crap that undercut our own industry.......mere incidentals......no, what matters is that you believe brother, believe in the Brexit myth, get behind it or you’re treacherous, share their unquestionable belief.

It’s nothing to do with the fact that a large proportion of them are fiscally protected from any economic drop off, and don’t care about the effects it might have on those who currently are financial stakeholders in our economy....you know, those working, with mortgages, kids and childcare costs......no sir, that would be somewhat reckless and extremely selfish, so that’s definitely not a factor.

It’s all absolutely nothing to do with immigration, no sir. We’re going to take full control of our borders though, even though we could have done that anyway, but couldn’t be arsed as it was a bit too hard. So Breixiteers haven’t bought into a lie about the EU being the cause of uncontrolled immigration, no sir.

 

[peteblue]

Pete, for such an experienced businessman I'm surprised by this insistence that 'trading with the world' is like a tap that is currently turned off that can be turned on. Companies don't go to the government for permission to sell/buy their widgets from China or Brazil. If there's a commercial imperative they'll be doing it already. All a trade deal does is make that trade easier by either removing tariffs on that trade, removing non-tariff barriers, or ideally both.

There seems an indelible focus by Brexiters on tariffs, when the reality of global trade is that non-tariff barriers are far more important as they govern things like standards and rules. It's this that makes the single market so valuable because those standards and rules are integrated more deeply than any other free trade agreement in the world.

The rationale you're espousing is that we're going to substitute trading partners in Europe whom we've developed deep relationships with (on account of the above standard rules and processes) and suddenly jump in with partners elsewhere that we haven't traded with before (despite nothing stopping us), just because this basic belief underpins the apparent value of Brexit.

You also seem to be continually overlooking the fact that a) immigration is hugely important to the wellbeing of our companies, and there is not a single company that doesn't want to be able to attract whatever talent it wants, whenever it wants. If you promoted free movement from all over the world then you'd have a (very good) point, but you don't, you continue to bang the controlled immigration troupe, as though Windrush et al haven't shown the government to be absolutely bloody clueless at 'managing' immigration, and b) that immigration isn't hugely valuable to our society, and c) that this whole stinking shitheap wasn't all about immigration and getting rid of foreigners.

Bruce, you and others on here keep saying that we will substitute trading partners in Europe with others in the RoW. I’m not sure how many times I can keep saying this until you get it. We will maintain our current trading partners in Europe and we will add additional RoW trade. We will not replace or substitute, we will add.

I know the immigration thing is a big deal for you, but Brexit is not about getting rid of foreigners and never has been, it’s about getting rid of another layer of administration over which we can exert little or no control......

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Bruce, you and others on here keep saying that we will substitute trading partners in Europe with others in the RoW. I’m not sure how many times I can keep saying this until you get it. We will maintain our current trading partners in Europe and we will add additional RoW trade. We will not replace or substitute, we will add.

I know the immigration thing is a big deal for you, but Brexit is not about getting rid of foreigners and never has been, it’s about getting rid of another layer of administration over which we can exert little or no control......

Again though Pete, that is perhaps your opinion, but it does not reflect the opinion of everyone that supported Brexit, much less everyone in the cabinet who has a say in these things. The rhetoric used about no deal being better than a bad deal and hard Brexits being okay because we'll fall back on WTO terms with the EU betray your belief that those in power want to maintain current trade with Europe come what may. The nonsense we get from the government are largely soundbites designed to appeal to people who have no clue about these things. Those who spend their life analysing global trade believe them to be bobbins.

Regarding immigration, again, I don't see how you can believe you speak for all Brexiteers. I mean you're disagreeing with Joe for one, who talks daily about managing immigration, and again there has been a tremendous amount of rhetoric from the government about reducing immigration numbers, forcing companies to reveal the # of foreign workers and so on. They didn't say those things for the good of their health, but because it was a dog whistle to an electorate for whom those things appeal. They may not be an issue for you, but that doesn't mean they're not for many.