BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Anytime I have evered watched a Newsnight with Farage on it he has been outnumbers mainly 4 to 1 on the brexit/remain view held. On a few occasions they find a second brexiteer to join him. When it comes to facts I would put you firmly in the camp that an economists view is a fact. Often it is an opinion.rick_chasey said:
Entirely depends what circles you are in. FWIW, all I see is how pro-brexit the BBC is, giving people like farage disproportionate air-time, etc, and shrouding factual things as 'opinions' since the other (usually, Brexit but obviously not always) side disputes them in bad faith, so I suggest one's view on the BBC is that it's neither.john80 said:
The BBC has been repeatedly shamed as being pro remain. The idea that they are pro Brexit overall is laughable.florerider said:
Big confusion between governance, finance and shareholder power. The drop in exchange rate due to Brexit made the shareholder position opposite to the corporate interest, hardly a success for the city. Brexit breaks alignement of investors with executive is the real headline. Just another example of extreme pro brexit bias by the BBC.coopster_the_1st said:
It's always good when remoaners get handed their backside in a bucketmamba80 said:Unilever soon to announce their new HQ will be in Rotterdam is a rather more worrying sign of where the UK is heading post Brexit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53005454
Reports of the death of the City of London as the centre of European finance appear to have been greatly exaggerated. Unilever's decision to end its unusual two-country corporate structure after 90 years is, at its heart, a triumph of money (the City) over politics (Brexit).
I think the BBC covered it badly in general, rather than any particular bias.0 -
I know, Boris and Faridge got well paid to go on hignfy.spatt77 said:
"extreme pro brexit bias by the BBC" oh FLO, you are wasted on here! The stage beckons, comedians earn a fortune you know!florerider said:
Big confusion between governance, finance and shareholder power. The drop in exchange rate due to Brexit made the shareholder position opposite to the corporate interest, hardly a success for the city. Brexit breaks alignement of investors with executive is the real headline. Just another example of extreme pro brexit bias by the BBC.coopster_the_1st said:
It's always good when remoaners get handed their backside in a bucketmamba80 said:Unilever soon to announce their new HQ will be in Rotterdam is a rather more worrying sign of where the UK is heading post Brexit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53005454
Reports of the death of the City of London as the centre of European finance appear to have been greatly exaggerated. Unilever's decision to end its unusual two-country corporate structure after 90 years is, at its heart, a triumph of money (the City) over politics (Brexit).
0 -
And high profile remainers did`nt?florerider said:
I know, Boris and Faridge got well paid to go on hignfy.spatt77 said:
"extreme pro brexit bias by the BBC" oh FLO, you are wasted on here! The stage beckons, comedians earn a fortune you know!florerider said:
Big confusion between governance, finance and shareholder power. The drop in exchange rate due to Brexit made the shareholder position opposite to the corporate interest, hardly a success for the city. Brexit breaks alignement of investors with executive is the real headline. Just another example of extreme pro brexit bias by the BBC.coopster_the_1st said:
It's always good when remoaners get handed their backside in a bucketmamba80 said:Unilever soon to announce their new HQ will be in Rotterdam is a rather more worrying sign of where the UK is heading post Brexit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53005454
Reports of the death of the City of London as the centre of European finance appear to have been greatly exaggerated. Unilever's decision to end its unusual two-country corporate structure after 90 years is, at its heart, a triumph of money (the City) over politics (Brexit).0 -
U.K. wants to join Pacific trade pact as trade deal with Canada approaches its end
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cptpp-trade-united-kingdom-nafta-1.56144700 -
always interesting to read overseas sources.TheBigBean said:U.K. wants to join Pacific trade pact as trade deal with Canada approaches its end
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cptpp-trade-united-kingdom-nafta-1.5614470
Not sure if we re serious or whether it is a clever negotiating ploy0 -
I don't see any reason to disagree with the article. UK would like to join the Pacific partnership and would also like to improve deal with Japan and Canada. Whether agreement can be found is another matter.surrey_commuter said:
always interesting to read overseas sources.TheBigBean said:U.K. wants to join Pacific trade pact as trade deal with Canada approaches its end
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cptpp-trade-united-kingdom-nafta-1.5614470
Not sure if we re serious or whether it is a clever negotiating ploy0 -
-
What percentage of world trade would that cover out of interest?TheBigBean said:"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
13% which is amazing when you consider it includes JapanStevo_666 said:
What percentage of world trade would that cover out of interest?TheBigBean said:0 -
So about the same size as the EU excluding the UK. I guess the growth rates of each will be different though.surrey_commuter said:
13% which is amazing when you consider it includes JapanStevo_666 said:
What percentage of world trade would that cover out of interest?TheBigBean said:"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Does it cover all the trade in that 13%? Or is it the total amount of trade of all the constituents 13%? As that's different, obviously.surrey_commuter said:
13% which is amazing when you consider it includes JapanStevo_666 said:
What percentage of world trade would that cover out of interest?TheBigBean said:0 -
Actually it's a hell of a lot more than that according to a quick google search - more like 40%:
https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-32498715#:~:text=TPP%20in%20a%20nutshell,fostering%20trade%20to%20boost%20growth.
https://cfr.org/backgrounder/what-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp
And without nearly as many strings attached....what's not to like? "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
whats not to like? - I think it is the perfect metaphor for BrexitStevo_666 said:Actually it's a hell of a lot more than that according to a quick google search - more like 40%:
https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-32498715#:~:text=TPP%20in%20a%20nutshell,fostering%20trade%20to%20boost%20growth.
https://cfr.org/backgrounder/what-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp
And without nearly as many strings attached....what's not to like?
Have you checked the small print that you will still be entitled to a free unicorn?
0 -
I can't believe I have become the designated reader of the link but maybe sack me as it is actually 13% of global GDP GDPrick_chasey said:
Does it cover all the trade in that 13%? Or is it the total amount of trade of all the constituents 13%? As that's different, obviously.surrey_commuter said:
13% which is amazing when you consider it includes JapanStevo_666 said:
What percentage of world trade would that cover out of interest?TheBigBean said:0 -
From the links:
"Twelve countries that border the Pacific Ocean signed up to the TPP in February 2016, representing roughly 40% of the world's economic output."
"The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s strategic pivot to Asia. Before President Donald J. Trump withdrew the United States in 2017, the TPP was set to become the world’s largest free trade deal, covering 40 percent of the global economy."
Although I assume that is banking on the US post-Trump rejoining."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Do you seriously reckon that the terms will be more onerous than what the EU are asking for?surrey_commuter said:
whats not to like? - I think it is the perfect metaphor for BrexitStevo_666 said:Actually it's a hell of a lot more than that according to a quick google search - more like 40%:
https://bbc.co.uk/news/business-32498715#:~:text=TPP%20in%20a%20nutshell,fostering%20trade%20to%20boost%20growth.
https://cfr.org/backgrounder/what-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp
And without nearly as many strings attached....what's not to like?
Have you checked the small print that you will still be entitled to a free unicorn?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I do think it's important to consider the impact of distance on the propensity for trade to occur between two countries.
It's been looked into and there is a lot of empirical evidence that shows quite clearly that the further away another country is the less trade there will be between the two, all other things being equal.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/02/23/why-distance-matters-in-trade/
Edit: in case it's not crystal clear, here's an opening line in this article
https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/medias/doc/by/chaney/distance.pdfThe gravity equation in international trade is one of the most robust empirical finding
in economics: bilateral trade between two countries is proportional to their respective sizes, measured by their GDP, and inversely proportional to the geographic distance between them
0 -
I'm sure there is a proximity connection for trade in physical goods: less so for services that can to a large extent be delivered remotely, or where the customer comes to you as in tourism. And services is the largest part of our economy. There are other factors, clearly.rick_chasey said:I do think it's important to consider the impact of distance on the propensity for trade to occur between two countries.
It's been looked into and there is a lot of empirical evidence that shows quite clearly that the further away another country is the less trade there will be between the two, all other things being equal.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/02/23/why-distance-matters-in-trade/
Edit: in case it's not crystal clear, here's an opening line in this article
https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/medias/doc/by/chaney/distance.pdfThe gravity equation in international trade is one of the most robust empirical finding
in economics: bilateral trade between two countries is proportional to their respective sizes, measured by their GDP, and inversely proportional to the geographic distance between them
Although to be fair, it makes sense for us to do trade deals with further flung countries to overcome the distance hurdle."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The rules of gravity apply the same for services as they do for physical goods. Read the articles.0
-
It might be worth it if we were still arguing about whether to leave or not.rick_chasey said:The rules of gravity apply the same for services as they do for physical goods. Read the articles.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It is relevant from a 'what type of brexit we want' and a 'how much weight we want to put on being members of trade areas which are in far-flung parts of the world' which is why I brought it up.Stevo_666 said:
It might be worth it if we were still arguing about whether to leave or not.rick_chasey said:The rules of gravity apply the same for services as they do for physical goods. Read the articles.
That makes sense, wouldn't you agree?
After all, the argument is about how much the UK wants to pivot away from trading with the EU to the rest of the world, right?0 -
If it's an important point, then maybe summarise in your own words the key points in the links rather than the rather dismissive 'go read'. I'm busy you know...rick_chasey said:
It is relevant from a 'what type of brexit we want' and a 'how much weight we want to put on being members of trade areas which are in far-flung parts of the world' which is why I brought it up.Stevo_666 said:
It might be worth it if we were still arguing about whether to leave or not.rick_chasey said:The rules of gravity apply the same for services as they do for physical goods. Read the articles.
That makes sense, wouldn't you agree?
After all, the argument is about how much the UK wants to pivot away from trading with the EU to the rest of the world, right?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I did.
I gave the summary first, and then the evidence to back it up.
So, to get back to the point; just because the CTTP is of a comparable size to the EU, it will likely not be a comparable sized trading partner to the UK as a result of the distance.
For the reason of both size AND proximity, surely the focus economically of the UK gov't would be to arrange as much access to the EU market as possible (since they have taken membership of the SM off the table), with, ideally, the wiggle room to maybe row back on that in the future in renegotiation if it makes sense to if the geopolitical and geoeconomic world changes.
0 -
your link is three years old and is referring to the proposed TPP. This did not happen and TBB's link refers to it's successor the CPTPP. The difference between the two is that the USA is not in the CPTPP so it does not account for 40% of global GDPStevo_666 said:From the links:
"Twelve countries that border the Pacific Ocean signed up to the TPP in February 2016, representing roughly 40% of the world's economic output."
"The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s strategic pivot to Asia. Before President Donald J. Trump withdrew the United States in 2017, the TPP was set to become the world’s largest free trade deal, covering 40 percent of the global economy."
Although I assume that is banking on the US post-Trump rejoining.0 -
a sane approach would be to announce the pivot away from the EU but to evolve the trade policy in the light of how the UK economy develops. A dogmatic swing to USA when we have no idea how this might turn out is madness.rick_chasey said:I did.
I gave the summary first, and then the evidence to back it up.
So, to get back to the point; just because the CTTP is of a comparable size to the EU, it will likely not be a comparable sized trading partner to the UK as a result of the distance.
For the reason of both size AND proximity, surely the focus economically of the UK gov't would be to arrange as much access to the EU market as possible (since they have taken membership of the SM off the table), with, ideally, the wiggle room to maybe row back on that in the future in renegotiation if it makes sense to if the geopolitical and geoeconomic world changes.0 -
Correct. Not least as the US is embarking on a new phase of protectionism.surrey_commuter said:
a sane approach would be to announce the pivot away from the EU but to evolve the trade policy in the light of how the UK economy develops. A dogmatic swing to USA when we have no idea how this might turn out is madness.rick_chasey said:I did.
I gave the summary first, and then the evidence to back it up.
So, to get back to the point; just because the CTTP is of a comparable size to the EU, it will likely not be a comparable sized trading partner to the UK as a result of the distance.
For the reason of both size AND proximity, surely the focus economically of the UK gov't would be to arrange as much access to the EU market as possible (since they have taken membership of the SM off the table), with, ideally, the wiggle room to maybe row back on that in the future in renegotiation if it makes sense to if the geopolitical and geoeconomic world changes.0 -
That is what I pointed out above - although the US is likely to rejoin once a certain idiot is out of power in the US. Even if not, we have another potential bite of the cherry via direct US trade deal.surrey_commuter said:
your link is three years old and is referring to the proposed TPP. This did not happen and TBB's link refers to it's successor the CPTPP. The difference between the two is that the USA is not in the CPTPP so it does not account for 40% of global GDPStevo_666 said:From the links:
"Twelve countries that border the Pacific Ocean signed up to the TPP in February 2016, representing roughly 40% of the world's economic output."
"The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s strategic pivot to Asia. Before President Donald J. Trump withdrew the United States in 2017, the TPP was set to become the world’s largest free trade deal, covering 40 percent of the global economy."
Although I assume that is banking on the US post-Trump rejoining.
Even without the US, the bloc is the same proportion of global GDP as the EU. Do you think it could be beneficial? Or are beneficial trade deals restricted to those done with the EU?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You can quote as much theory as you like, the question of what we can agree with the EU is limited by the political issues/red lines and point's of control/governance.rick_chasey said:I did.
I gave the summary first, and then the evidence to back it up.
So, to get back to the point; just because the CTTP is of a comparable size to the EU, it will likely not be a comparable sized trading partner to the UK as a result of the distance.
For the reason of both size AND proximity, surely the focus economically of the UK gov't would be to arrange as much access to the EU market as possible (since they have taken membership of the SM off the table), with, ideally, the wiggle room to maybe row back on that in the future in renegotiation if it makes sense to if the geopolitical and geoeconomic world changes.
So we need to look to the rest of the World to see what we can do to benefit the UK.
However, using your proximity logic, we should always be able to do a fair amount of trade with the EU as they will alway be geographically close by. However the EU growth rate is pretty poor even ignoring COVID, so over time blocs such as the CTTP will grow in significance - again following your logic that proximity (no change) and size (growing) are the main drivers."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
To be honest I can't be bothered to wade through the detail, I reached some doc about the Aussie TUC moaning about the rules on labour mobility, got a huge feeling of deja vue and could not be bothered to read further to see if it was a scaremongering.Stevo_666 said:
That is what I pointed out above - although the US is likely to rejoin once a certain idiot is out of power in the US. Even if not, we have another potential bite of the cherry via direct US trade deal.surrey_commuter said:
your link is three years old and is referring to the proposed TPP. This did not happen and TBB's link refers to it's successor the CPTPP. The difference between the two is that the USA is not in the CPTPP so it does not account for 40% of global GDPStevo_666 said:From the links:
"Twelve countries that border the Pacific Ocean signed up to the TPP in February 2016, representing roughly 40% of the world's economic output."
"The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s strategic pivot to Asia. Before President Donald J. Trump withdrew the United States in 2017, the TPP was set to become the world’s largest free trade deal, covering 40 percent of the global economy."
Although I assume that is banking on the US post-Trump rejoining.
Even without the US, the bloc is the same proportion of global GDP as the EU. Do you think it could be beneficial? Or are beneficial trade deals restricted to those done with the EU?
Why the childlike questioning? I thought we were rolling over or lining up deals with Japan, Canada, Australia and NZ. I guess every little helps but not sure what we gain from deals with the other members0 -
you don't understand what a strong driver proximity is. 8 of our 10 biggest export markets are in Europe and the two exceptions are the biggest economies in the worldStevo_666 said:
You can quote as much theory as you like, the question of what we can agree with the EU is limited by the political issues/red lines and point's of control/governance.rick_chasey said:I did.
I gave the summary first, and then the evidence to back it up.
So, to get back to the point; just because the CTTP is of a comparable size to the EU, it will likely not be a comparable sized trading partner to the UK as a result of the distance.
For the reason of both size AND proximity, surely the focus economically of the UK gov't would be to arrange as much access to the EU market as possible (since they have taken membership of the SM off the table), with, ideally, the wiggle room to maybe row back on that in the future in renegotiation if it makes sense to if the geopolitical and geoeconomic world changes.
So we need to look to the rest of the World to see what we can do to benefit the UK.
However, using your proximity logic, we should always be able to do a fair amount of trade with the EU as they will alway be geographically close by. However the EU growth rate is pretty poor even ignoring COVID, so over time blocs such as the CTTP will grow in significance - again following your logic that proximity (no change) and size (growing) are the main drivers.
United States: US$72.6 billion (15.5% of total UK exports)
Germany: $46.6 billion (9.9%)
France: $31.2 billion (6.7%)
Netherlands: $30.3 billion (6.5%)
China: $30 billion (6.4%)
Ireland: $27.9 billion (5.9%)
Belgium: $16.8 billion (3.6%)
Switzerland: $15.5 billion (3.3%)
Spain: $13.7 billion (2.9%)
Italy: $12.8 billion (2.7%)0
