Meat Wad

Brexit, WTF

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, LeoV said:

And why is that ? It is only a ferry to take. Though I would invest in an outboard and Rib service near Calais if I wanted to make money. They even steal boats in harbours now.

Hmmm. Calais to Dublin with an outboard and Rib.  

You might want to read up on the weather conditions and turn right before you get to Fasnet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The looniest pro Brexit theory is the pound will crash insulating inefficient exporters having to front the real world. Trouble is the population will only be able to afford a flatscreen TV or an IPhone, but not both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mambo Kings said:

You are assuming that the UK consumer will be able to afford horse meat after leaving the EU. 

Trimmings with all the trimmings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LeoV said:

Keep on bringing on ideas, keeps my mind sharp, this Brexit stuff is my Brainteaser. Why o why I promised to a friend to keep a eye on this, now I am addicted, sorry.

Leo, when you live here the sentiment is quite different ;)

I assume that Rotterdam is ramping up their customs and border control systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, dogwatch said:

No I don't think he's an opportunist, he's a student of history who believes that in the long term, Britain would be best served standing on its own in the world. I happen to think that's a false analysis but it's a case that can be legitimately presented. Nor was the leave vote primarily middle class. 

JRM's real motives will never be known, even the inevitable memoirs will stay resolutely on-message. There's been various speculations about his companies capitalizing on the falling pound, but it was so inevitable you'd be stupid not to. However, if he was genuinely a student of history he would know that no nation has ever been best served standing on its own, you either work with your neighbours, or defend yourself against them at your cost.

His arguments fall over at the slightest scrutiny, but on the rare occasion a journo points this out, they are immediately belittled and accused of calling him a liar and denying him his right to his views, portraying himself as the victim. He never defends what he just said with any facts. In the face of this rebuke, I've yet to see a journo just calmly repeat that what he just said is materially incorrect, and so he gets away with his verbal bullying and is considered an orator as a result. As pointed out elsewhere, it may be a valid technique when debating hypotheticals in college, but the issues are real now, and facts should matter.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Laser1 said:

I assume that Rotterdam is ramping up their customs and border control systems.

Rotterdam already has them, it trades extensively with the rest of the world already. They just need to feed the UK stuff out through the "rest of world" channels instead, which will frequently mean just leaving the goods on the external side since much has come in that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Laser1 said:

Leo, when you live here the sentiment is quite different ;)

I assume that Rotterdam is ramping up their customs and border control systems.

Yep, but will take a while,
DtuJ7kWW4AAg3x5.jpg:large

 

they just did find 13 million cigarettes going to the UK, hidden in a concrete bridge part. Though a dog sniffed it;
Du70U8vXcAUMTl2.jpg

And they will not spend to much time for looking into products going to the UK, that is their problem, but focus on the incoming stuff, as is normal.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rgeek said:

Jrm an oritor? Seriously who thinks that??? 

Most of the Conservative Party membership, it seems. And these people elect the party leader, who may become PM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rgeek said:

Jrm an oritor? Seriously who thinks that??? He's a substanceless buffoon!

He's far more dangerous than that. His pronouncements may be substance-less, and his persona may be buffoonish, but both are carefully pitched to derive influence over a surprisingly broad spectrum of the population.

1 hour ago, dogwatch said:

Most of the Conservative Party membership, it seems. And these people elect the party leader, who may become PM.

And the media, who seem to be fighting over themselves to be patronised by him. Presumably he gives them what they need, views, hence why they won't challenge him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hump101 said:

He's far more dangerous than that. His pronouncements may be substance-less, and his persona may be buffoonish, but both are carefully pitched to derive influence over a surprisingly broad spectrum of the population.

And the media, who seem to be fighting over themselves to be patronised by him. Presumably he gives them what they need, views, hence why they won't challenge him.

The darling of the clickbait media does not make him an orator. There's already one clown prince in bozza. They didn't even make a second round against a seriously wounded May

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rgeek said:

The darling of the clickbait media does not make him an orator. There's already one clown prince in bozza. They didn't even make a second round against a seriously wounded May

100% agree with you, but we seem to inhabit a universe where this is not universally understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, hump101 said:

Rotterdam already has them, it trades extensively with the rest of the world already. They just need to feed the UK stuff out through the "rest of world" channels instead, which will frequently mean just leaving the goods on the external side since much has come in that way.

The UK already gets stuff from the rest of the world not direct but via Rotterdam. There is a thing called the "Rotterdam Effect'" which tends to skew statistics showing the Netherlands as being a EU source supplier, when in fact it is not and has come from a non EU country.

Once the UK leaves the EU Rotterdam won't be able to act as the UK's defacto border control point as it does now. The UK will have to do all its own border control heavy lifting, a cost that is sweept under the carpet by Brexiteers, and for agricultural sourced products a significant cost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, hump101 said:

JRM's real motives will never be known, even the inevitable memoirs will stay resolutely on-message.

I think he has some bizzare notion of turning the UK into some giant low rent tax haven sitting on the doorstep of Europe.

After daddy died and he learnt the art of writing cheques he co-founded in 2007 an outfit Somerset Management, an emerging markets fund. Those markets are very right wing Tory ie fossil fuels etc. Somerset is managed via subsidiaries in the tax havens of the Cayman Islands and Singapore. 

You will find a common thread between many wealthy Brexiteers, is their love of tax havens.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, hump101 said:

And the media, who seem to be fighting over themselves to be patronised by him. Presumably he gives them what they need, views, hence why they won't challenge him.

When challenged he starts frothing at the mouth, turning purple and breaking into condescending humour using old latin. Seeing this I think reporters pull back thinking their now interviewing a suicide bomber chanting in Etonian.

He is a very dangerous cunt.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Once the UK leaves the EU Rotterdam won't be able to act as the UK's defacto border control point as it does now. The UK will have to do all its own border control heavy lifting, a cost that is swept under the carpet by Brexiteers, and for agricultural sourced products a significant cost. 

Agreed, but the cost isn't just at the UK end. Products from non-EU sources are shipped to a single EU importer, who then distributes them around Europe easily. Either this importer will need to set up a UK-only customs channel, at cost, or the original supplier will need to do so, though this will be unlikely given the relatively small quantities the UK needs compared to the whole EU. The UK will then need to process these goods when they finally arrive.

An example of this is car spares. When you need a piece to fix your Honda, it is shipped overnight from Belgium. If it isn't in stock there, it arrives in 3 days from Japan. Now all these parts will need to be processed for export by Honda in Belgium, and processed at the UK border by UK customs, plus UK tariffs paid, with associated delays. The knock-on effect is that cars will sit an extra day in repair shops waiting for parts, which also has a cost associated with it. Almost every little corner of the economy is similarly impacted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think RM is a pessimist about about the future of Western liberal civilisation, and has a fondness for strong leaders, rather than strong institutions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LeoV said:

I think RM is a pessimist about about the future of Western liberal civilisation, and has a fondness for strong leaders, rather than strong institutions.

 

Leo I just think he has a fondness for nude sheep who went to Eton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hump101 said:

Agreed, but the cost isn't just at the UK end.

Bingo.. Brexiteers work in this weird  one sided bubble...like we have a great trade balance with Mongolia, so let's buy our flat screen TV's from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LeoV said:

I think RM is a pessimist about about the future of Western liberal civilisation, and has a fondness for strong leaders, rather than strong institutions.
 

What specifically has he said that would lead you to either of those conclusions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LeoV said:

I think RM is a pessimist about about the future of Western liberal civilisation, and has a fondness for strong leaders, rather than strong institutions.

 

 

13 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

What specifically has he said that would lead you to either of those conclusions?

I get worried when the Nanny who raised him still lives in house raising his children plus chauffeurs him around to engagements. I'm detecting a fondness for someone strong but who doesn't know Latin and doesn't talk back. Very Freudian I know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, dogwatch said:

What specifically has he said that would lead you to either of those conclusions?

First part I gave a link to his live earlier on. Second part his behaviour with the ERG group.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LeoV said:

First part I gave a link to his live earlier on. Second part his behaviour with the ERG group.
 

Leo that is high end interlectual stuff. You need to delve deeper to unlock the Rees Mogg mystery for the world to see.

The root of the impasse that the UK finds itself in over Brexit is largely due to the Rees Mogg dynasty going back to when the wheel was invented and brought to the UK by the Romans, followed by the invention of the combustion engine and motor vehicle in the 1800's. Over those centuries the Rees Mogg family mantra has always been "we don't walk we are carried" or in later times "we don't drive we are taken".

Now you would then expect a wider appreciation of things like Taxis or ride sharing amoungst these Rees Moggs. Unfortunately they haven't a fuckin clue, having for hundreds of years been chauffeured by their hired help, who are on a first name basis like Alfred or Wadsworth.

So a reporter who cottons on to this concept of carriage entitlement only needs to get an interview with JRM and keep asking the question.."Can you please tell me sir what an Uber is??"

However they will need to be prepared for a response along the lines of "oh yes, you mean Uber in Sumerian the language isolate spoken in Mesopotamia meaning "topmost" or "super" ...and yes that is exactly my desire for this country". At this point a reporter needs to get forceful and say something along the lines of "No Uber the car share ride thing you dead cunt". Now Rees Mogg won't take offence but simply say something like "I'm surprised you knew my aunt was dead, thank you awfully so much for the condolences"

I therefore think the responsibility for the rise of this JRM fool rests largely with a media not willing to investigate or ask strong questions using lots of swear words.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least you had remembered to put them on ….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cms said:

At least you had remembered to put them on ….

That’s a vision nobody needs! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

I just pissed my pants.

It’d be funny if wasn’t so close to the truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

Leo that is high end interlectual stuff. You need to delve deeper to unlock the Rees Mogg mystery for the world to see.

I therefore think the responsibility for the rise of this JRM fool rests largely with a media not willing to investigate or ask strong questions using lots of swear words.

Oh, the media does enough, just google; what is there to like of reese mogg
I wanted to see both sides :)

It is just that lying politicians are not punished, he keeps hammering for years on the same things, like the EU referendum in the Netherlands, he is wrong on that, has been pointed out, and just keep saying the same lie for years, it is funny to look at old speeches of him, years of telling lies, as there is 10% truth and 90% lie in his facts, and he knows it. But he gets away with it. So he is manipulating the politics. So unethical as hell. Happens in more places then in the UK. So he is not unique.

For instance the speech below should have included; how democratic is the UK itself ? Please discuss that Rees Mogg.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hump101 said:

 

An example of this is car spares. When you need a piece to fix your Honda, it is shipped overnight from Belgium. If it isn't in stock there, it arrives in 3 days from Japan. Now all these parts will need to be processed for export by Honda in Belgium, and processed at the UK border by UK customs, plus UK tariffs paid, with associated delays. The knock-on effect is that cars will sit an extra day in repair shops waiting for parts, which also has a cost associated with it. Almost every little corner of the economy is similarly impacted.

Zeebrugge is one of the main short sea ports to the UK, one of the known huge problem points (being worked on of course) that came up when a hard Brexit was assessed is so simple and straightforward that it borders on the ridiculous but it is telling : at this moment UK being in the EU there is hardly any customs stuff (relatively speaking) and mostly automated, give us a hard Brexit and suddenly there is a need for customs clearing and paperwork galore, this is normally done by specialised customs agents ... so far it's like "yawn, we all know that" ... but the catch is that the two custom agent companies in Zeebrugge are both located in the same narrow street in Zeebrugge town and if suddenly everybody has to come up or drive up to these offices the whole area will be totally congested, even leading to a total standstill in and around Zeebrugge. The guys from Dover will have a deja vu probably.

as they say, Buddah is in the little details

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Albatros said:

Zeebrugge is one of the main short sea ports to the UK,  ... but the catch is that the two custom agent companies in Zeebrugge are both located in the same narrow street in Zeebrugge town and if suddenly everybody has to come up or drive up to these offices the whole area will be totally congested, even leading to a total standstill in and around Zeebrugge.

Hence truck/trailer holding areas will have to be created in all short sea ports, R'dam, Zeebrugge, Dunkirk, Calais, Boulogne, Dieppe, Le Havre, Cherbourg and so on.

Zeebrugge has the transport zone already so the clerks will have to do the running like in the old days.

There will be a growth market for customs agencies and personnel on both sides of the channel depending on the outcome of this farce but it is all a bit late in the day to train people and set that up. 

Rack 'em and stack'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2018 at 11:29 PM, jack_sparrow said:

I have just had the first pill and so can now address both your horseshit and inability to understand and interogate any argument contrary to Brexiteer bullshit in a calm state of mind. For instance you say.

 

So you can't find anything on WTO tariff rules etc to support what I'm saying the end of the week, but I replied to last weekend spelling it out for you for the umpteenth time back then. It is like pulling teeth..

 

To save you the bother of reading that post it included a linky as follows which you clearly didn't bother to read, let alone read my post in reply to you.

https://projectblue.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/Market Insight/BeefandLamb_bitesize (1).pdf.

You will see it talks of an "Effective ad valorem rate" to be applied instead what you do is rattling off Tariff figures from a generalised and misleading tarrif website that apply tariffs to no one other than a handfull of countries that otherwise can't export to the EU by way of Quota. The Ad Valorem tariff rates are calculated essentially as a fixed percentage of the assessed commercial value of the goods and while that linky is dated 20115, is valid today as a differential. That is why Beef products if ever imported to the UK outside the EU/WTO have an effective tariff anywhere between  48% and 160% as shown, not the 12/13% that you are pulling out of your arse with no knowledge of the industry. The real tariff depending on cut and frozen/fresh can exceed the value of the product. Welcome to world beef economics.

I can guarantee you one thing. If you, Boris and Rees Mogg go out for a steak dinner tonight and insist on Argentine or Australian Beef, the landed cost before processing will be around £3,700 per tonne. That cost won't be too much different than if you were eating high end local beef in the UK. At the same time @LeoV in Amsterdam taking his wife out for dinner the same night will be paying around the same price. However the next day @LeoVwanting to make it two nights in a row his price paid will remain the same. However you Boris and Rees Mogg with a No Deal  Brexit occuring at midnight will pay based on a landed price of around £5,500 per tonne inclusive of additional WTO tariffs and red tape costs. Putting aside that cost differential if Ireland drops out along with the EU and EU sanctioned deals, who provides the UK with a decent steak? Mesopotamia and Cathay??

The pro and anti Brexit lobby all tell lies. My guess is the pro Brexits cherry pick and have noses longer than Pinochio. That aside the Beef test is compelling as all bets are off unless someone is very skinny, likes top hats and is into Veganomics.

 

ad valorem tariffs are how the EU calculates tarrifs mostly for 2 way trade,  brexit means UK leaving, so that has nothing to do with this, UK can do what it likes less treat all counties the same under WTO rules

from your article which is mainly focused on UK exports ( and re imported processed UK beef)  but it does state;

"If the UK instead decides not to impose tariffs on imports, or negotiates quotas with global exporters, there could be
a sizeable rise in imports from the global market. Australia, the US and South America, the most likely suppliers, are
all keen to increase their access to the EU market, including the UK. These countries are lower-cost producers, which
would mean their beef would be competitive on the UK market, even after shipping costs are taken into account. "

 

If the UK leaves without a deal it will use WTO rules yet you say the WTO web site is misleading, is there another organisation involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sailabout said:

from your article which is mainly focused on UK exports ( and re imported processed UK beef)  but it does state;

You forget that it is you not I who introduced UK exports into the discussion.

My bad as I should have not responded as my experience is limited in that regard. My experience is simply being part of the largest beef exporting country in the world, and how do we view Brexit and the consumer price outcome for UK citizens to the pound £. That is real life and not made up Moggonomics.

3 hours ago, Sailabout said:

If the UK leaves without a deal it will use WTO rules yet you say the WTO web site is misleading, is there another organisation involved?

Fuck me. The mortal sin in any debate is attributing statements or even a inference coming from the other side they have not made and out of context. Yet you keep doing it post by post despite being pulled up where I'm forced to being rude. Well fuck off cunt, I've had enough of your shit.

I have no interest conversing with you anymore as it is clearly taking you away from watching old MoggMovies and MoggMasturbating.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sailabout said:

"If the UK instead decides not to impose tariffs on imports, or negotiates quotas with global exporters, there could be
a sizeable rise in imports from the global market. Australia, the US and South America, the most likely suppliers,
are
all keen to increase their access to the EU market, including the UK. These countries are lower-cost producers, which
would mean their beef would be competitive on the UK market
, even after shipping costs are taken into account. "

That Brexiteer lie now sits above the mouth and cum one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sailabout said:

ad valorem tariffs are how the EU calculates tarrifs mostly for 2 way trade,  brexit means UK leaving, so that has nothing to do with this, UK can do what it likes less treat all counties the same under WTO rules

from your article which is mainly focused on UK exports ( and re imported processed UK beef)  but it does state;

"If the UK instead decides not to impose tariffs on imports, or negotiates quotas with global exporters, there could be
a sizeable rise in imports from the global market. Australia, the US and South America, the most likely suppliers, are
all keen to increase their access to the EU market, including the UK. These countries are lower-cost producers, which
would mean their beef would be competitive on the UK market, even after shipping costs are taken into account. "

Yep, prices could go down if all stars align perfect, specially the exchange rate of the pound. So your point stands, it is possible, but the stars are far apart and if they align (trade deals to set up with , is the pound going to rise as the Brexiteers say, how will the UK control its inflation ?) it is going to take awhile and needs a lot of luck.
you really think an AUS exporter is going to bet his livelihood on a successful Brexit or just keep trading as now, which is profitable.

https://unithermfoodsystems.com/what-does-brexit-mean-for-the-global-meat-industry/
There is a great deal of uncertainty over what the nature of the UK’s post-Brexit trading arrangements will be. Decisions over post-Brexit membership of the single market and participation in the customs union will have profound effects on the price and import mix of the foods on UK supermarket shelves. It is also unclear whether sterling will depreciate further – or appreciate – as Brexit proceeds. These uncertainties over tariffs and the exchange rate mean that UK households are potentially going to be affected by considerable and unpredictable changes in food prices, with the poorest households much more exposed to this risk than the richest households. 

Or read this, its short enough,
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/what-would-trading-on-wto-terms-mean-2/
Take one example. The current tariff quota for New Zealand lamb
coming into the EU is around 230,000 tonnes, meaning everything up
to this amount can be imported duty free. For any imports above that, a
significant tariff is charged. The UK and EU have proposed that their quotas
should be divided to maintain the same total of 230,000 tonnes. Going
on the estimated percentages that ended up in the UK and EU between
2013 and 2015, that basically amounts to a 50-50 split. However, New
Zealand and others have objected, arguing that this deprives exporters
of the choice of which of 28 national European markets to choose for
their product (based on profitability).

Or the Singapore myth:
Slashing import duties would have the biggest impact on sectors that are
the most protected. These are generally agriculture and food and drink.
The reasons for protecting agriculture through tariffs include ensuring
some local production is kept alive. We do this partly so we don’t rely
totally on imported food, partly to keep farmers in business, and partly to
preserve rural communities and protect the environment. Singapore and
Hong Kong are both cites, and neither has agriculture of any significance.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2018 at 10:45 AM, NaptimeAgain said:

Thinking about what the UK exports that I want to buy. 

 

I like a box of Walker's mince pies this time of year. I suppose I could eat a box in the summer too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Singapore historically doesn't produce much of anything, zilch natural resources, and has become uber wealthy via port services and financial services. No cheap labor there compared to the rest of Asia.  Unclear what local industries they would need to protect with tariffs. Their deep water port isn't going anywhere, and the ubiquitous use of English (or Singlish) even between Asians makes it easy for business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not read every post in this thread, but it seems that everyone has forgotten that the original referendum was not suppose to be binding. It was suppose to be advisory only and only 36% of the UK voted. Hardly a 'people's vote'.

That dickhead Farage said that if the vote was 48 to 52 in favour of staying in the EU, he would call for a second referendum, 'it's not over' were his words. He has now ensured that his children have German citizenship (his wife is German but the children were British until Brexit). The same goes for Aaron Banks, also a hard-line Brexiteer, has ensured his family have EU citizenship by paying Malta over £630,000.

A lot of the million/billionaires in the UK have moved their money into other countries to mitigate the effects of a poor economy in post Brexit UK.

Let's also not forget the lies and deliberately misleading statements made by the leave contingent, which alone should render the referendum null and void.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, triciarob said:

I've not read every post in this thread, but it seems that everyone has forgotten that the original referendum was not suppose to be binding. It was suppose to be advisory only and only 36% of the UK voted. Hardly a 'people's vote'.

So - do you apply that logic WRT percentage voters to other votes, or is it just the one where you don't like the outcome?

The reason I ask is, on your logic, pretty much every vote in both the UK and the USA can be discounted/ignored due to low voter turnout.

I don't give a damn pro/con Brexit other than the entertainment it provides but if you want to invalidate the vote on the grounds of low voter turnout, that's a truly *lovely* can of worms to open......

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

So - do you apply that logic WRT percentage voters to other votes, or is it just the one where you don't like the outcome?

The reason I ask is, on your logic, pretty much every vote in both the UK and the USA can be discounted/ignored due to low voter turnout.

I don't give a damn pro/con Brexit other than the entertainment it provides but if you want to invalidate the vote on the grounds of low voter turnout, that's a truly *lovely* can of worms to open......

FKT

You are ignoring the bit where he pointed out that the referendum was supposed to be advisory only... And that is one of the reasons for a low turnout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The leavers like Boris and Rees Mogg paint a People's Vote as a "losers vote" and the original vote should be adhered to. Yet they voted for May to be their leader, but since that ink was dry have been trying to chuck her out including orchestrating a no confidence vote.

Two of the most hypocritical and self serving politicians with their snouts in the Westminster trough.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There us no public backing for brexit at this point...


With key decisions to make on Brexit, I’ve been consulting as widely as possible with constituents.  Thank you to almost 200 people who attended my public meetings in Buxton and Glossop on 23rd and 24thNovember to let me know your thoughts on the proposed deal with the European Union, the businesses who attended my Business Brexit summit, and to over 1,500 residents who completed my survey on what you want from our deal, and the way forward.
 
Survey Results
Now we can see the shape of the deal negotiated, there has been some shift in opinions in High Peak since the survey I conducted in the first half of the year: 
  • Only 12% supported Theresa May’s deal, whilst 32% supported No Deal and 55% wanted to remain in the European Union.
  • 16% of Leave voters from 2016 now say they’d vote to remain in the EU, along with 87% of new voters
  • Respondents were strongly in favour of being in a Customs Union with ‘friction-free’ trade with the EU, including almost half (49%) of former Leave voters. 
  • Slightly over half of former Leave voters (51%) also wished to retain full Single Market access. 
  • The majority of all voters wished to see a ‘soft’ border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, and the same rights as the EU in the workplace, for Health & Safety, environmental and consumer protections.
  • There is still reluctance over a second referendum, with only 40% wanting one on any deal
  • But a majority – including almost half of Leave voters (48%) - want a referendum before we left with No Deal. 
  • In any referendum that did happen, a majority wanted to see voters having the option to remain in the EU.

You can read the full report of the survey here.
 
High Peak’s survey and views of local residents made up much of a full article in the Guardian on 8th  December.
 
Local businesses were extremely concerned about the possibility of leaving the EU with No Deal and were also finding it difficult to plan ahead and secure investment because of the uncertainty.
 
Theresa May’s Deal
The proposed deal, which continues the status quo until December 2020, but with no say on regulations, and then leaves our future relationship open to further negotiation, with only a non-binding form of words agreed, is the worst of both worlds and will commit us to years of further negotiation and uncertainty.
 
I asked the Prime Minister about this, and although she stated that the short-term deal is legally binding, could give no assurances about our future relationship beyond 2020.  You can see my question here
 
With Theresa May having now committed to resign as Prime Minister after Brexit, it’s likely to be a different Conservative leader who would be in charge of negotiating that future relationship.  Some of the leadership contenders are proposing a very ‘hard’ Brexit, with no access to a Customs Union, to the single market, or the same regulations.  This is contrary to the wishes of a majority of constituents, and is very worrying.
 
My Views
I believe we should all have as much information as possible about the consequences of our deal with the EU, so I voted for the full legal advice to be published and I’m pleased this vote was won.
 
Based on my own concerns, and on the lack of support in High Peak for the proposed deal, I will be voting against it.  I believe that the government must bring forward the ‘Meaningful Vote’ as soon as possible so that other options can be explored with the maximum time to find the best solution.
 
If the government cannot bring forward a deal that Parliament can support, I reject Theresa May’s claim that we have no alternative but to leave with No Deal, which would have very serious consequences for our economy, and for local businesses and jobs.
 
In such a situation, if we could not achieve a deal acceptable to Parliament, I believe that it would be wrong for Parliament alone to decide on either of the other alternatives – to leave with No Deal, or to remain in the European Union - and there should be a democratic vote on the way forward.
 
I would like to see as much impartial information as possible available before any vote and whichever course is decided upon being implemented directly after the vote.
 
I’m still taking submissions to my survey, so please complete it if you haven’t yet: here.

 
With best wishes for Christmas and the New Year

Kind regards

 
Ruth George MP
Member of Parliament for High Peak
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, rgeek said:

There us no public backing for brexit at this point...

This Labour MP seems to have more brains and gives greater thought to the views of her constituents than many of her Westminster colleagues on both sides of the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looked into the service industry, damn the big boys in The City are only 30% of the service industry, and internal market is the biggest share.
And many services go together with goods, like aircraft wings go together with service contract.

In short, no deal Brexit will hurt, The City companies will be fine, but smaller, and so less tax income for the UK.
Of the websites and articles I did read this one is the best summary
https://www.boleat.com/materials/brexit_fsi.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vacationing in the UK over Christmas and New Year, I offer the following few observations:

  • Young and middle aged people in the UK are overwhelmingly against BREXIT.  This is supported by the statistics of the original referendum where a significant majority of voters under the age of 40 voted to remain and the Leave vote only succeeded due to older voters with memories of an independent British Empire. Young professionals and working people  are rightly unhappy that older people are leaving them with the mess of Brexit which will affect the working population of the UK in the future and they wanted to remain.
  • The damage is already done in many places. Good jobs are leaving the UK in a steady flow of dribs and drabs.
  • Prior to Brexit, the UK was the service capital of Europe and the gateway to Europe for many American and Asian companies who typically located their European or EMEA headquarters in the UK. These were well paying secure jobs. Panasonic is moving its European HQ to Amsterdam. Obviously the EMA (Europe's equivalent of the FDA) must leave the UK and they have already announced that they are relocating to Amsterdam.....several thousand well paid, well qualified, non-cyclical jobs gone!  Muji (retailer) is moving its European HQ to Germany. In all, 75 of the largest 222 companies based in the UK have publicly announced plans to move some or all of their staff to Europe. Rees-Mogg and his aristocratic friends can reminisce about the British Raj, but real jobs are being lost.
  • Small engineering companies, something that the UK was really good at, are losing business in all the uncertainty. Smaller UK engineering companies did a lot of work installing well designed niche equipment around Europe. Their customers cannot afford to wait for clarity as to whether the equipment will be available at the same price after March 29 or even if the installers will be allowed to work in Europe. Reluctantly preference is being given to the French, German or Polish competitor.......it is just easier to buy from a European supplier even if the British good is better made and better priced. UK products are seen as having a "hassle" factor. 
  • The "Immigration" argument for Brexit was BS from day one:   1. Regarding immigrants from Africa or the Middle East, each sovereign state has always been able to set its own immigration standards. EU membership had no impact on immigration in this area, it has always been entirely up to the UK to decide how many, if any, immigrants to allow.  2. Regarding immigrants from newer members of the EU, such as the central European EU members eg Poland etc.  New members of the EU do NOT get free movement of labor for the first 10 years after joining unless an individual sovereign state  decides to waive that requirement.  Most did not waive the requirement. The UK chose of its own accord to waive the requirement.  Dont blame the EU!  As a result several hundred thousand Poles etc came to the UK...AND....incidentally work hard and contribute to the UK economy. I have heard all kinds of good things said about that inflow.......but either way it was a British decision made by the British government not an EU decision.
  • The "WTO option" is a pipedream.  According to the WTO, Mauritania is the only member of WTO to trade solely on WTO rules. Great....the UK can join the exalted ranks of Mauritania and try and trade without bilateral trade agreements and free trade zones. Oh but wait.....Mauritania has announced it is joining the  Economic Community of West African States, and establishing preferential trade arrangements with some 20 WTO members.   That will leave the UK on its own. perhaps it can reach out to Algeria, Serbia and North Korea who are not members of WTO!

 

In short, Brexit was and is a monumental folly.  It is not supported by the vast majority of the younger British people who will have to pay for the folly.  It would be very interesting to get to the bottom of who funded and perpetrated the Brexit vote and how they motivated the older vote in England to vote for the economic mess they are imposing on their children.  Whoever was behind it, they did not have much luck influencing the Scots.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/news/rbs-applies-for-german-banking-licence-in-preparation-for-brexit/

RBS is 62% owned by the Government after it received a £45 billion taxpayer bailout a decade ago at the height of the financial crisis. Earlier in December, RBS announced it is to shift £13 billion worth of business to the Netherlands in the event of a disorderly Brexit. This must hurt, as even RBS takes measures.
Oh, and this opening a small office in the EU will work, but it has to be expanded, per EU rules, or license gets revoked. So what is now a 10 man office will grow to hundreds in a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mambo Kings said:

 

In short, Brexit was and is a monumental folly..... It would be very interesting to get to the bottom of who funded and perpetrated the Brexit vote and how they motivated the older vote in England to vote for the economic mess they are imposing on their children ...

Your above post right on the money.  I'm however afraid that nobody has the power, the backbone or the will to do anything about it and it looks like they are heading for the cliff.  On that note you must be well aware that your political apparatus is trying to get to the bottom of how orange man got into the driving seat and nothing earth shattering seems to be happening there either. 

 

 

Lemmings

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to correct a few of the points made above:

1. Referendum turnout was 72%

2. I do not like JRM or Boris at all but the leading campaigners for remain included the duplicitous Tony Blair.

3. The remain campaigners were mostly the same as people who had insisted that not joining the Euro would be a disaster. It's clear that joining the Euro would have been a disaster.

4. My experience with EU rule making - the 'Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive' - did not impress me with the EU  at all.

5. The British were sold a free trade area and have now got a proto-federal state.

6. 40% of the Scottish votes were to leave.

7. The EU is incapable of internal reform. The Lisbon Treaty was essentially drafted by Giscard d'Estaing  - Jack Sparrow should look at him to see real corruption in action.

Another referendum is the only reasonable course of action for the UK. May's deal will just cause prolonged uncertainty and another failed negotiation; a hard BREXIT now would be better.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Expatriated said:

I need to correct a few of the points made above:

1. Referendum turnout was 72%

If I'm not mistaken ....... only of people eligible to vote.  No under 18's, no established EU citizens in the UK.

Odd that the people that will affect it most were barred from having a say.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

This Labour MP seems to have more brains and gives greater thought to the views of her constituents than many of her Westminster colleagues on both sides of the house.

She's in a conservative seat that swings labour when ever the Tories behave like dicks. The high peak did vote leave originally but only by a small margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Laser1 said:

If I'm not mistaken ....... only of people eligible to vote.  No under 18's, no established EU citizens in the UK.

Odd that the people that will affect it most were barred from having a say.

I'm sorry but allowing non-citizens to vote in national elections or referendums is crazy.

Any comments on anything else in my list?

Any view on the EU removal of the Italian government - https://www.ft.com/content/b9474c88-8e98-11e3-b6f1-00144feab7de (note the FT is a very pro-EU news paper)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mambo Kings said:

Vacationing in the UK over Christmas and New Year, I offer the following few observations:

  • Young and middle aged people in the UK are overwhelmingly against BREXIT.  This is supported by the statistics of the original referendum where a significant majority of voters under the age of 40 voted to remain and the Leave vote only succeeded due to older voters with memories of an independent British Empire. Young professionals and working people  are rightly unhappy that older people are leaving them with the mess of Brexit which will affect the working population of the UK in the future and they wanted to remain.
  • The damage is already done in many places. Good jobs are leaving the UK in a steady flow of dribs and drabs.
  • Prior to Brexit, the UK was the service capital of Europe and the gateway to Europe for many American and Asian companies who typically located their European or EMEA headquarters in the UK. These were well paying secure jobs. Panasonic is moving its European HQ to Amsterdam. Obviously the EMA (Europe's equivalent of the FDA) must leave the UK and they have already announced that they are relocating to Amsterdam.....several thousand well paid, well qualified, non-cyclical jobs gone!  Muji (retailer) is moving its European HQ to Germany. In all, 75 of the largest 222 companies based in the UK have publicly announced plans to move some or all of their staff to Europe. Rees-Mogg and his aristocratic friends can reminisce about the British Raj, but real jobs are being lost.
  • Small engineering companies, something that the UK was really good at, are losing business in all the uncertainty. Smaller UK engineering companies did a lot of work installing well designed niche equipment around Europe. Their customers cannot afford to wait for clarity as to whether the equipment will be available at the same price after March 29 or even if the installers will be allowed to work in Europe. Reluctantly preference is being given to the French, German or Polish competitor.......it is just easier to buy from a European supplier even if the British good is better made and better priced. UK products are seen as having a "hassle" factor. 
  • The "Immigration" argument for Brexit was BS from day one:   1. Regarding immigrants from Africa or the Middle East, each sovereign state has always been able to set its own immigration standards. EU membership had no impact on immigration in this area, it has always been entirely up to the UK to decide how many, if any, immigrants to allow.  2. Regarding immigrants from newer members of the EU, such as the central European EU members eg Poland etc.  New members of the EU do NOT get free movement of labor for the first 10 years after joining unless an individual sovereign state  decides to waive that requirement.  Most did not waive the requirement. The UK chose of its own accord to waive the requirement.  Dont blame the EU!  As a result several hundred thousand Poles etc came to the UK...AND....incidentally work hard and contribute to the UK economy. I have heard all kinds of good things said about that inflow.......but either way it was a British decision made by the British government not an EU decision.
  • The "WTO option" is a pipedream.  According to the WTO, Mauritania is the only member of WTO to trade solely on WTO rules. Great....the UK can join the exalted ranks of Mauritania and try and trade without bilateral trade agreements and free trade zones. Oh but wait.....Mauritania has announced it is joining the  Economic Community of West African States, and establishing preferential trade arrangements with some 20 WTO members.   That will leave the UK on its own. perhaps it can reach out to Algeria, Serbia and North Korea who are not members of WTO!

 

In short, Brexit was and is a monumental folly.  It is not supported by the vast majority of the younger British people who will have to pay for the folly.  It would be very interesting to get to the bottom of who funded and perpetrated the Brexit vote and how they motivated the older vote in England to vote for the economic mess they are imposing on their children.  Whoever was behind it, they did not have much luck influencing the Scots.

That is an awful lot of definite opinion to have come up with on your short holiday. Not saying you are wrong, but sounds like you have reinforced your previous opinions rather than looking for anything that might disagree with them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Laser1 said:

If I'm not mistaken ....... only of people eligible to vote.  No under 18's, no established EU citizens in the UK.

Odd that the people that will affect it most were barred from having a say.

Really, you are disappointed that only eligible people could vote? Maybe they could have let everyone that has ever visited the UK vote.  Or maybe those that think their children might want to visit later on in life. 

Have heard some strange stuff from both sides but this is certainly right up there with the best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Laser1 said:

Your above post right on the money.  I'm however afraid that nobody has the power, the backbone or the will to do anything about it and it looks like they are heading for the cliff.  On that note you must be well aware that your political apparatus is trying to get to the bottom of how orange man got into the driving seat and nothing earth shattering seems to be happening there either. 

Just wait until the new Congress convenes next week with the Democrats in control of the House of Representatives.  Several committees will begin rummaging through the orange one's cupboards, and we should soon get to see his tax returns.  That should be fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Expatriated said:

Any view on the EU removal of the Italian government - https://www.ft.com/content/b9474c88-8e98-11e3-b6f1-00144feab7de (note the FT is a very pro-EU news paper)? 

Yep, there was a lot of unrest, but nothing happened that was unconstitutional. And it did not remove the Italian government, Berlusconi got convicted of fraud.
And the story of Friedman is a bit thin. The historians are not convinced it is the truth anyway. And Napolitano denies, and nobody proved him wrong.
https://www.corriere.it/english/14_febbraio_11/napolitano-denies-summer-2011-plot-letter-to-corriere-sera-a7dbf0f2-9320-11e3-aaf6-4579e45c2a0a.shtml

But it shows you drag everything in it to view EU as bad. How easy it is to find flaws of the UK itself... including corruption like Estaing did, the undemocratic problems of the UK, the rule making in the UK is not impressive too. The UK is unable to reform itself.

On 3; The euro has proved to be exactly the job-destroying, recession-creating, undemocratic monster as was said.  Yeah right. But staying out of the Euro makes Brexit easier.
When the UK joined it was the sick man of Europe, it is not any more.

For the rest of your points, 5 is a good point to get a fair referendum. It should be enough on its own.

I went in with a blank view, and found many many lies on the leave side. A few on the remain.
I actually hoped to find out that the UK and the EU could solve Brexit in a good way that would not damage both to much. And I understood a Brexit like a hard Brexit, out of the EU single market, costums union, EJC etc. No such way I am afraid now.

So far as I can find, the hard Brexit will in her short term lead to a poorer UK but independent. With potential problems in NI.
The Eu will loose a bit of power and standing and will be bit poorer.
On the long run ? Who knows... The EU will still be there, muddling along from crises to crises and getting more centralized.
The UK will still be there, competing with the EU. And there is the catch, competition hurts if you are the smaller one.
As De Gaulle already said about the UK in the EU, never trust the UK, wise words now.. With the mess the UK is now and will be for decades it is on the political front maybe better that they leave.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2018 at 12:38 PM, dogwatch said:

The continuing delusion that the EU would be hurt by no-deal anything like as much the UK would. 

Boris Johnson is a sort of Trump mini-me.

How he ever rose to a senior position in government escapes me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

Boris Johnson is a sort of Trump mini-me.

How he ever rose to a senior position in government escapes me.

From Wikipedia- "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, better known as Boris Johnson"

the sort of toff who always falls up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2018 at 8:56 AM, Expatriated said:

I need to correct a few of the points made above:

1. Referendum turnout was 72%. 65.4% of UK citizens of eligible age turned out to vote.  Of the 35% who did not vote, approximately a third were unable to vote because they had not properly registered to vote (so its their fault if their voice was not heard). Of registered voters, 72.2% voted. The vote was in favor of leaving the EU.

2. I do not like JRM or Boris at all but the leading campaigners for remain included Tony Blair. You are correct that the Remain voters included leaders from both parties including the prime minister and leader of the Conservative party, David Cameron and the former prime minister and leader of the Labour party Tony Blair. In fact every living former prime minister from both parties advocated remaining part of the European Union. To put this into perspective for an American audience, this would be like  Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama all agreeing on what was right for the nation, while a populist former journalist who had been fired for falsifying quotes campaigned the opposite view. 

Also the head of the TUC (trades union congress) and the CEOs of a host of the FTSE 100 largest companies in the UK were among those campaigning to stay.

I am not saying that you have to agree with their views but the caliber of the folks advocating to remain included some fairly thoughtful people from both sides of the political spectrum.

3. The remain campaigners were mostly the same as people who had insisted that not joining the Euro would be a disaster. It's clear that joining the Euro would have been a disaster. Sorry...FYI this is incorrect. Cameron, Blair, Gordon Brown, Thatcher etc....all advocated retaining an independent currency and an independent central bank.  The Remain vote was not a vote to join the Euro currency, far from it.

4. My experience with EU rule making - the 'Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive' - did not impress me with the EU  at all. You got us there.  Im not sure how it is worse than US federal regulation on EMC performance of electrical and electronic equipment but we'll take your word for it.

5. The British were sold a free trade area and have now got a proto-federal state.

Incorrrect.  The UK remains a sovereign nation. Theoretically (hopefully never to be tested), the UK can even go to war with another EU member !  Of course NATO treaty would be an impediment there, but perhaps we should leave NATO as well?

6. 40% of the Scottish votes were to leave. Presumably 60% voted to stay?

7. The EU is incapable of internal reform. The Lisbon Treaty was essentially drafted by Giscard d'Estaing  - Jack Sparrow should look at him to see real corruption in action.

Its not important but GDE had drafted an earlier version three years earlier which was rejected. Lisbon came after he had been ejected. He did try to take some credit but the European leaders, patted his head and told him to go back and play in his sandpit.Both France(despite GDE being French) and Netherlands steadfastly rejected the GDE version.

Another referendum is the only reasonable course of action for the UK. Your are probably correct. Both sides of the debate seem to agree. But are the politicians prepared to do this?

May's deal will just cause prolonged uncertainty and another failed negotiation; a hard BREXIT now would be better. My personal view is that most who support a so called hard Brexit dont fully understand what it means, just that it sounds good.....but perhaps you have a job that is not affected by a hard Brexit.

You asked for feedback.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2018 at 9:38 PM, SloopJonB said:

Boris Johnson is a sort of Trump mini-me.

How he ever rose to a senior position in government escapes me.

He is loved by the party faithful. He's an amusing speaker if you are uninterested in facts.

May wanted him inside the tent pissing out. It didn't really work out for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expatriated shows a good insight in the reasons why some wanted a Brexit, Eu Bad, Uk Great. And drag everything in the discussion, lies , half lies and some sparse truth.
 

Du4W1qQW0AA0U6G.jpg:large

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile the car industry are speaking up;
https://www.smmt.co.uk/2018/12/automotive-industry-warns-of-catastrophe-of-exiting-eu-without-an-agreement-no-deal-must-be-off-the-table/

And a year wasted:
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/2018-has-been-a-wasted-year/

That website has some good material, though navigation on it is horrible.
Try this link,  UK in a Changing Europe report, Cost of No Deal Revisited.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mambo Kings said:

You asked for feedback.

Tony Blair pushed very hard for the UK to join the Euro and was only stopped by Gordon Brown.

I'm sorry but the EU is clearly moving towards a federal state - the politician's quotes here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Europe are worth reading.

From a trade point of view BREXIT will be a disaster. My personal view is a hard BREXIT in March will be less damaging than another two years (or more) of negotiation and argument. I will not be directly impacted by BREXIT - I still have family in the UK but live in the USA.

LeoV's characters above are outstandingly ignorant - David Davies should have stuck to be a TV presenter on the local BBC station in Manchester!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Expatriated said:

From a trade point of view BREXIT will be a disaster. My personal view is a hard BREXIT in March will be less damaging than another two years (or more) of negotiation and argument.

Could you elaborate your view on this? You don't mean trade, obviously, from your previous sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LeoV said:

Expatriated shows a good insight in the reasons why some wanted a Brexit, Eu Bad, Uk Great. And drag everything in the discussion, lies , half lies and some sparse truth.
 

Du4W1qQW0AA0U6G.jpg:large

The worst thing is, one of these d*ckheads is my MP with a sadly more than comfortable majority!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Expatriated said:

Tony Blair pushed very hard for the UK to join the Euro and was only stopped by Gordon Brown.

I'm sorry but the EU is clearly moving towards a federal state - the politician's quotes here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Europe are worth reading.

From a trade point of view BREXIT will be a disaster. My personal view is a hard BREXIT in March will be less damaging than another two years (or more) of negotiation and argument. I will not be directly impacted by BREXIT - I still have family in the UK but live in the USA.

LeoV's characters above are outstandingly ignorant - David Davies should have stuck to be a TV presenter on the local BBC station in Manchester!

2 hours ago, hump101 said:

Could you elaborate your view on this? You don't mean trade, obviously, from your previous sentence.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. BREXIT will clearly cause a huge disruption to supply chains to and from the EU. It will make buying from UK companies less attractive but I suspect will have less impact on selling to the UK because of the market size differences and better opportunities for specialization.

My biggest reservation about the EU is the federal state direction. This is being driven far faster than a large, maybe majority, of Europeans want to see. 

The Euro is really not a subject for this thread but to survive it requires a banking union and fiscal transfers. Free movement of people in theory helps regional economic differences to converge but this is very slow and the barriers to migration across Europe are high (note: it is easy for the highly skilled and the young to move but for for others very different). I have lived in France and now live in the USA and moving to the USA was easier!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Expatriated said:

Tony Blair pushed very hard for the UK to join the Euro and was only stopped by Gordon Brown.

I'm sorry but the EU is clearly moving towards a federal state - the politician's quotes here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Europe are worth reading.

From a trade point of view BREXIT will be a disaster. My personal view is a hard BREXIT in March will be less damaging than another two years (or more) of negotiation and argument. I will not be directly impacted by BREXIT - I still have family in the UK but live in the USA.

LeoV's characters above are outstandingly ignorant - David Davies should have stuck to be a TV presenter on the local BBC station in Manchester!

Highly speculative. Mind you one of the reasons most of the northern European countries in the Eu are completely pissed off with the UK is that the UK was a bulwark against the federalisation of Europe. Something they don't particularly want.

.. and that's Gordon Brown whose economic genius led to labour holding the parcel when the GFC hit, resultig in a political vacuum on the centre left that has left the door open for the bullshit we're currently having to put up with. Oh and whose political acumen made him unelectable as a leader in his own right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a speculative comment, but I wonder what would have been the effect of Brexit if the UK had elected to be in the Euro currency regime?  It would be a trillion dollar economy moving out of the Euro back to Sterling.  It may have been a deadly blow to the Euro.  

But since they (we) decided to keep Sterling the potential vast effects of Brexit on the Euro financial system may not be felt.  Has anyone looked at this?

Just a hypothetical question, but it might shine some light on the wrangling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Expatriated said:

I have lived in France and now live in the USA and moving to the USA was easier! 

Do not know what happened to you, but I lived in the States, and once worked for yrs in Spain so officially emigrated.
US, was a paper workout, took weeks for a simple workers permit, proof of nice behaviour from Dutch police had to be translated to English and even lung photos. Spain 4 hrs work of which 3 hrs was waiting time, 2 visits in total and had my registration.

 

54 minutes ago, Expatriated said:

Sorry if I wasn't clear. BREXIT will clearly cause a huge disruption to supply chains to and from the EU. It will make buying from UK companies less attractive but I suspect will have less impact on selling to the UK because of the market size differences and better opportunities for specialization.

Suspicion does not count in the world of trade, research does.

The Fed of Europe, maybe in 50 years, not sooner, as said Nordic countries against it..
Funny is that a few posts back you said the EU was incapable of reforms, a bit of a contradiction.

No reason for a hasty disorderly chaotic Brexit. Could do it in a few years again. Only a bit more organized please.

And you really think the bickering will stop after 29 March.
The remainers will stay angry because the vote was based on the Leave campaign side, unlawfull (overspending), criminal money involved (campaign donations could not be properly accounted for), unfair tactics (Cambridge analytics),  and had Russians meddling. And the lies, do not get me started on that one. And only won with a few %.
People will see the effect it will have, at least less money in their wallet, and job losses. And will be angry and keep bickering. For years until the UK can turn the tide. The UK will be divided for a decade at least.

Pwop, I did, the Eu is looked at as % of gdp of the world in power, whether that is Pound, Franc, Mark or Euro does not matter really.
I did only found some funny articles, like;
https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/jun/02/britain-euro-what-if-joined

or more serious, the UK is actually Italy or Greece in disguise, saved by the BankOfEngland sovereignty.
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6182/economics/if-the-uk-had-been-in-the-euro/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LeoV - I think we can only suspect what the effect of BREXIT will be on the trade balance with Europe. Getting a French work permit took so long that I was moved to Geneva before I got it. The Netherlands was trivial and very easy. The US work permit was easy but the Green Card was slow with lots of paperwork.

Without the UK the push to a European Federal state will accelerate. The main blocker at the moment is the need to transfer money from the richer (mostly Northern) countries to the poorer regions (this happens to some degree already) and a banking union. The next financial crisis will bring these closer. I don't see this as reform of Europe - it is the ongoing extension of the EU pushed by Juncker/Delors/and many others over the years - 'don't let  a good crisis go to waste'.

The BREXIT bickering in the UK will only get worse after March 29th. The UK currently has (had?) the best membership arrangement it could hope for; any attempt to rejoin will be very problematic for the rest of the EU and new members must accept moving to the Euro. As I've said cancel BREXIT and have another referendum!

The UK would be like Italy if it used the Euro -the UK needs significant productivity growth and not have the crutch of currency devaluation to prosper in a currency union. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking into the effects and read a few pieces on it, from the Brexit orientated Freetraders, were everything is fine, to more independant sources.
Which tell imports and exports will suffer. Shooting holes in the Freetraders arguments was easy.

ouch, spending 900.000 on Brexit campaign, gamble and make 220 million.
Odey was one of the most prominent supporters of the drive to leave the EU and donated almost £900,000 to pro-Brexit campaigns. He placed huge bets against the pound and government bonds in the run-up to the June 2016 referendum and made an estimated £220m profit when the pound collapsed following the leave victory.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/28/crispin-odey-hedge-fund-bets-against-uk-economy-brexit-profit-falls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, P_Wop said:

Just a speculative comment, but I wonder what would have been the effect of Brexit if the UK had elected to be in the Euro currency regime?  It would be a trillion dollar economy moving out of the Euro back to Sterling.  It may have been a deadly blow to the Euro.  

But since they (we) decided to keep Sterling the potential vast effects of Brexit on the Euro financial system may not be felt.  Has anyone looked at this?

Just a hypothetical question, but it might shine some light on the wrangling.

Given the amount of back office fleeing the UK at present, that's difficult to judge. Likely that trillion dollars of business would have remained in the Euro area, just not in the UK.

Just in terms of our own experience we deal with a UK supplier for components and work entirely in Euro. They have had a lot of difficulty trading in GBP for quite some time. So the impact is wider than just financial services too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jobs going to the EU yet the UK has a trade deficit with the EU, so just how good is the EU trade for the UK?

Youth unemployment rate in the EU is saying there is no growth
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2018 at 10:48 PM, NaptimeAgain said:

Singapore historically doesn't produce much of anything, zilch natural resources, and has become uber wealthy via port services and financial services. No cheap labor there compared to the rest of Asia.  Unclear what local industries they would need to protect with tariffs. Their deep water port isn't going anywhere, and the ubiquitous use of English (or Singlish) even between Asians makes it easy for business.

i was making the point that you dont need wto rules or bilateral trade deals to just say we have zero tariffs especially if its one way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Expatriated said:

My personal view is a hard BREXIT in March will be less damaging than another two years (or more) of negotiation and argument.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

What I meant was your reasons for the above statement? Do you think that after another divisive 2 years we will have a hard brexit anyway, so we might as well swallow the medicine now, or do you see an even worse mechanism? You don't think anything better than a hard brexit could be achieved?

Also, what do you fear about federalism in the EU? Do you see issues with this in the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The men and women who work at the European headquarters of the US insurance giant Chubb and the UK insurance industry in general would like to thank Rees-Mogg for his thoughtful lack of concern on their behalf, as one by one well paid jobs leave the UK.

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2017/09/11/463862.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sailabout said:

i was making the point that you dont need wto rules or bilateral trade deals to just say we have zero tariffs especially if its one way.

Bob has 10 apples. Jim has 10 oranges.

Jim gives Bob 10 oranges for free.

Who has the apples?

Will Jim be in a better position to negotiate for some apples:

a) before he gives Bob the oranges

b) after he gives Bob the oranges but before he's starving

c) after giving Bob the oranges, and 10 more oranges and he is now starving?

If Jim waits until he's starving to ask Bob for some apples, will Bob:

a) Give Jim all the apples

b) Give Jim just enough apples to stay alive

c) Lend Jim the money at an exorbitant interest rate so that he can buy some apples, then repossess Jims other assets when Jim defaults on the loan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relax. It is all under control. Government are spending £108 million with 3 ferry companies (of which only one British) to increase services to south UK ports away from Dover.

The totally needless cost of this Brexit fiasco is a crime of staggering proportions. Think what could have been done with the money for health, poverty, pollution ….

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

    

7 hours ago, hump101 said:

What I meant was your reasons for the above statement? Do you think that after another divisive 2 years we will have a hard brexit anyway, so we might as well swallow the medicine now, or do you see an even worse mechanism? You don't think anything better than a hard brexit could be achieved?

Also, what do you fear about federalism in the EU? Do you see issues with this in the US?

Yes - two more years will change nothing so better to take the hard medicine now. A hard exit now saves 39 billion....

There are some issues with subventions from the richer to poorer states in the US but the US has (well mostly has) a single language and a more unified culture than Europe. In the US people seem themselves as American first and really don't think much about their state.

The UK could have negotiated a better deal by being a lot more flexible on EU migration and refusing to submit the BREXIT letter until no-deal preparations had been started. It's far too late for this now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK cannot avoid the famous 39 billion. When you sign a contract, you agree terms and if you break them, do not expect the other party to simply let you off paying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe there is any legal requirement to pay the 39 billion. It would have been much better to delay submitting the BREXIT letter to coincide with the end of the EU budget cycle but Barnier et al would let that happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no doubt that more thought and planning before pulling the trigger would have been a bloody good idea. Perhaps it might even have made enough people realise that suicide is stupid. But the UK commitment to the budget is not negotiable and reneging would have catastrophic consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Expatriated said:

I don't believe there is any legal requirement to pay the 39 billion. It would have been much better to delay submitting the BREXIT letter to coincide with the end of the EU budget cycle but Barnier et al would let that happen.

Good luck with the trade negotiations if you welch on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites