BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Sure. ROW is not the leverage you think it is.Stevo_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.
Yes you're right there isn't suddenly going to be zero trade with the EU, and post-brexit it will still likely be the biggest trading partner by some distance for a long time.
The point is, if you already have a lot - there is a lot to lose.
If you don't, you don't.
So, as our resident Brexiter (as opposed to brexiteer, natch), where do you sit on the trade off for single market access and 'sovereignty' or whatever you want to call it?
I think me and SC have been quite clear we value the benefits of the single market vastly more than all the trade offs combined. You argued on this very thread years ago that being part of the single market was important. I get the impression that's changed now - so where would you be drawing the line?
1 -
Well, for exchange for a FTA, which is mutually beneficial, we give them some access to our fishing waters and provide them with access to security information, which we currently provide 64% of all security Intel Europe wide and continue to provide Military security on Europe's border with Russia! seems fair enough to me!rick_chasey said:
Sure. ROW is not the leverage you think it is.Stevo_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.
Yes you're right there isn't suddenly going to be zero trade with the EU, and post-brexit it will still likely be the biggest trading partner by some distance for a long time.
The point is, if you already have a lot - there is a lot to lose.
If you don't, you don't.
So, as our resident Brexiter (as opposed to brexiteer, natch), where do you sit on the trade off for single market access and 'sovereignty' or whatever you want to call it?
I think me and SC have been quite clear we value the benefits of the single market vastly more than all the trade offs combined. You argued on this very thread years ago that being part of the single market was important. I get the impression that's changed now - so where would you be drawing the line?0 -
Fair enough, could I ask, in the event of no deal, what % you expect our exports to the EU to have fallen by in 3 years?spatt77 said:
Well, for exchange for a FTA, which is mutually beneficial, we give them some access to our fishing waters and provide them with access to security information, which we currently provide 64% of all security Intel Europe wide and continue to provide Military security on Europe's border with Russia! seems fair enough to me!rick_chasey said:
Sure. ROW is not the leverage you think it is.Stevo_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.
Yes you're right there isn't suddenly going to be zero trade with the EU, and post-brexit it will still likely be the biggest trading partner by some distance for a long time.
The point is, if you already have a lot - there is a lot to lose.
If you don't, you don't.
So, as our resident Brexiter (as opposed to brexiteer, natch), where do you sit on the trade off for single market access and 'sovereignty' or whatever you want to call it?
I think me and SC have been quite clear we value the benefits of the single market vastly more than all the trade offs combined. You argued on this very thread years ago that being part of the single market was important. I get the impression that's changed now - so where would you be drawing the line?0 -
To be honest, and Remainers still dont get this, Im not bothered, if i`m a £100 a week worse off in 3 years time then so be it, if i loose my job, then so be it! I voted for this and I`ll live with the repercussions. In three years time and its all gone to ratshit then I will bow to your superior knowledge and tell myself how stupid i was to believe all the leavers! But i wouldnt hold ya breath if i was you;)surrey_commuter said:
Fair enough, could I ask, in the event of no deal, what % you expect our exports to the EU to have fallen by in 3 years?spatt77 said:
Well, for exchange for a FTA, which is mutually beneficial, we give them some access to our fishing waters and provide them with access to security information, which we currently provide 64% of all security Intel Europe wide and continue to provide Military security on Europe's border with Russia! seems fair enough to me!rick_chasey said:
Sure. ROW is not the leverage you think it is.Stevo_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.
Yes you're right there isn't suddenly going to be zero trade with the EU, and post-brexit it will still likely be the biggest trading partner by some distance for a long time.
The point is, if you already have a lot - there is a lot to lose.
If you don't, you don't.
So, as our resident Brexiter (as opposed to brexiteer, natch), where do you sit on the trade off for single market access and 'sovereignty' or whatever you want to call it?
I think me and SC have been quite clear we value the benefits of the single market vastly more than all the trade offs combined. You argued on this very thread years ago that being part of the single market was important. I get the impression that's changed now - so where would you be drawing the line?0 -
What about the people that didn’t want it but may also lose out?spatt77 said:
To be honest, and Remainers still dont get this, Im not bothered, if i`m a £100 a week worse off in 3 years time then so be it, if i loose my job, then so be it! I voted for this and I`ll live with the repercussions. In three years time and its all gone to ratshit then I will bow to your superior knowledge and tell myself how stupid i was to believe all the leavers! But i wouldnt hold ya breath if i was you;)surrey_commuter said:
Fair enough, could I ask, in the event of no deal, what % you expect our exports to the EU to have fallen by in 3 years?spatt77 said:
Well, for exchange for a FTA, which is mutually beneficial, we give them some access to our fishing waters and provide them with access to security information, which we currently provide 64% of all security Intel Europe wide and continue to provide Military security on Europe's border with Russia! seems fair enough to me!rick_chasey said:
Sure. ROW is not the leverage you think it is.Stevo_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.
Yes you're right there isn't suddenly going to be zero trade with the EU, and post-brexit it will still likely be the biggest trading partner by some distance for a long time.
The point is, if you already have a lot - there is a lot to lose.
If you don't, you don't.
So, as our resident Brexiter (as opposed to brexiteer, natch), where do you sit on the trade off for single market access and 'sovereignty' or whatever you want to call it?
I think me and SC have been quite clear we value the benefits of the single market vastly more than all the trade offs combined. You argued on this very thread years ago that being part of the single market was important. I get the impression that's changed now - so where would you be drawing the line?0 -
-
what about the people who didnt want to join in 73` and in doing so lost out?rick_chasey said:
What about the people that didn’t want it but may also lose out?spatt77 said:
To be honest, and Remainers still dont get this, Im not bothered, if i`m a £100 a week worse off in 3 years time then so be it, if i loose my job, then so be it! I voted for this and I`ll live with the repercussions. In three years time and its all gone to ratshit then I will bow to your superior knowledge and tell myself how stupid i was to believe all the leavers! But i wouldnt hold ya breath if i was you;)surrey_commuter said:
Fair enough, could I ask, in the event of no deal, what % you expect our exports to the EU to have fallen by in 3 years?spatt77 said:
Well, for exchange for a FTA, which is mutually beneficial, we give them some access to our fishing waters and provide them with access to security information, which we currently provide 64% of all security Intel Europe wide and continue to provide Military security on Europe's border with Russia! seems fair enough to me!rick_chasey said:
Sure. ROW is not the leverage you think it is.Stevo_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.
Yes you're right there isn't suddenly going to be zero trade with the EU, and post-brexit it will still likely be the biggest trading partner by some distance for a long time.
The point is, if you already have a lot - there is a lot to lose.
If you don't, you don't.
So, as our resident Brexiter (as opposed to brexiteer, natch), where do you sit on the trade off for single market access and 'sovereignty' or whatever you want to call it?
I think me and SC have been quite clear we value the benefits of the single market vastly more than all the trade offs combined. You argued on this very thread years ago that being part of the single market was important. I get the impression that's changed now - so where would you be drawing the line?0 -
What was lost out on?spatt77 said:
what about the people who didnt want to join in 73` and in doing so lost out?rick_chasey said:
What about the people that didn’t want it but may also lose out?spatt77 said:
To be honest, and Remainers still dont get this, Im not bothered, if i`m a £100 a week worse off in 3 years time then so be it, if i loose my job, then so be it! I voted for this and I`ll live with the repercussions. In three years time and its all gone to ratshit then I will bow to your superior knowledge and tell myself how stupid i was to believe all the leavers! But i wouldnt hold ya breath if i was you;)surrey_commuter said:
Fair enough, could I ask, in the event of no deal, what % you expect our exports to the EU to have fallen by in 3 years?spatt77 said:
Well, for exchange for a FTA, which is mutually beneficial, we give them some access to our fishing waters and provide them with access to security information, which we currently provide 64% of all security Intel Europe wide and continue to provide Military security on Europe's border with Russia! seems fair enough to me!rick_chasey said:
Sure. ROW is not the leverage you think it is.Stevo_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.
Yes you're right there isn't suddenly going to be zero trade with the EU, and post-brexit it will still likely be the biggest trading partner by some distance for a long time.
The point is, if you already have a lot - there is a lot to lose.
If you don't, you don't.
So, as our resident Brexiter (as opposed to brexiteer, natch), where do you sit on the trade off for single market access and 'sovereignty' or whatever you want to call it?
I think me and SC have been quite clear we value the benefits of the single market vastly more than all the trade offs combined. You argued on this very thread years ago that being part of the single market was important. I get the impression that's changed now - so where would you be drawing the line?
You understand what I’m driving at here, right?
It’s a weird mentality “well if it’s sh!t it’s fine because I voted for it”.
0 -
Theirs always gonna be winners and losers Rick, some people will win out of Brexit, some wont! its a weird mentality to think everybody wins being in the EU.rick_chasey said:
What was lost out on?spatt77 said:
what about the people who didnt want to join in 73` and in doing so lost out?rick_chasey said:
What about the people that didn’t want it but may also lose out?spatt77 said:
To be honest, and Remainers still dont get this, Im not bothered, if i`m a £100 a week worse off in 3 years time then so be it, if i loose my job, then so be it! I voted for this and I`ll live with the repercussions. In three years time and its all gone to ratshit then I will bow to your superior knowledge and tell myself how stupid i was to believe all the leavers! But i wouldnt hold ya breath if i was you;)surrey_commuter said:
Fair enough, could I ask, in the event of no deal, what % you expect our exports to the EU to have fallen by in 3 years?spatt77 said:
Well, for exchange for a FTA, which is mutually beneficial, we give them some access to our fishing waters and provide them with access to security information, which we currently provide 64% of all security Intel Europe wide and continue to provide Military security on Europe's border with Russia! seems fair enough to me!rick_chasey said:
Sure. ROW is not the leverage you think it is.Stevo_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.
Yes you're right there isn't suddenly going to be zero trade with the EU, and post-brexit it will still likely be the biggest trading partner by some distance for a long time.
The point is, if you already have a lot - there is a lot to lose.
If you don't, you don't.
So, as our resident Brexiter (as opposed to brexiteer, natch), where do you sit on the trade off for single market access and 'sovereignty' or whatever you want to call it?
I think me and SC have been quite clear we value the benefits of the single market vastly more than all the trade offs combined. You argued on this very thread years ago that being part of the single market was important. I get the impression that's changed now - so where would you be drawing the line?
You understand what I’m driving at here, right?
It’s a weird mentality “well if it’s sh!t it’s fine because I voted for it”.0 -
It probably takes us back to page one if I ask what exactly will be 'won' from Brexit, given that we can't eat woolly concepts such as 'sovereignty'.0
-
I get that you value sovereignty over economics but to place a greater value on sovereignty than access to the SM you must have an opinion on the value of the SM.spatt77 said:
To be honest, and Remainers still dont get this, Im not bothered, if i`m a £100 a week worse off in 3 years time then so be it, if i loose my job, then so be it! I voted for this and I`ll live with the repercussions. In three years time and its all gone to ratshit then I will bow to your superior knowledge and tell myself how stupid i was to believe all the leavers! But i wouldnt hold ya breath if i was you;)surrey_commuter said:
Fair enough, could I ask, in the event of no deal, what % you expect our exports to the EU to have fallen by in 3 years?spatt77 said:
Well, for exchange for a FTA, which is mutually beneficial, we give them some access to our fishing waters and provide them with access to security information, which we currently provide 64% of all security Intel Europe wide and continue to provide Military security on Europe's border with Russia! seems fair enough to me!rick_chasey said:
Sure. ROW is not the leverage you think it is.Stevo_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.
Yes you're right there isn't suddenly going to be zero trade with the EU, and post-brexit it will still likely be the biggest trading partner by some distance for a long time.
The point is, if you already have a lot - there is a lot to lose.
If you don't, you don't.
So, as our resident Brexiter (as opposed to brexiteer, natch), where do you sit on the trade off for single market access and 'sovereignty' or whatever you want to call it?
I think me and SC have been quite clear we value the benefits of the single market vastly more than all the trade offs combined. You argued on this very thread years ago that being part of the single market was important. I get the impression that's changed now - so where would you be drawing the line?0 -
I said above that I can see the proximity link.surrey_commuter said:
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%)
However that it to some extent based on the past when proximity was more important - as I explained above, services of (say) the IT and financial variety are less geography dependent. I see the same pattern in the business expansion of our own Group into technology and IT services.
So there is more potential in these other markets, even if you disregard their higher growth rates compared to the EU.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I explained previously that there is some knee jerk assumption in here that other trade deals are not really worth much. I'm just challenging that as it makes no sense.surrey_commuter said:
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 members
Why the childlike reply?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Ask yourself how likely we are to stay in the single market. You're going back to hypotheticals and I can't see the point. I prefer to deal with the realities.rick_chasey said:
Sure. ROW is not the leverage you think it is.Stevo_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.
Yes you're right there isn't suddenly going to be zero trade with the EU, and post-brexit it will still likely be the biggest trading partner by some distance for a long time.
The point is, if you already have a lot - there is a lot to lose.
If you don't, you don't.
So, as our resident Brexiter (as opposed to brexiteer, natch), where do you sit on the trade off for single market access and 'sovereignty' or whatever you want to call it?
I think me and SC have been quite clear we value the benefits of the single market vastly more than all the trade offs combined. You argued on this very thread years ago that being part of the single market was important. I get the impression that's changed now - so where would you be drawing the line?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I could post a long list of government decisions that were not in my interests over my lifetime. That is democracy. Some will be be better off some will not. Are you angry that zooms profits have gone up in Covid but other businesses have been negatively affected. It called life.rick_chasey said:
What about the people that didn’t want it but may also lose out?spatt77 said:
To be honest, and Remainers still dont get this, Im not bothered, if i`m a £100 a week worse off in 3 years time then so be it, if i loose my job, then so be it! I voted for this and I`ll live with the repercussions. In three years time and its all gone to ratshit then I will bow to your superior knowledge and tell myself how stupid i was to believe all the leavers! But i wouldnt hold ya breath if i was you;)surrey_commuter said:
Fair enough, could I ask, in the event of no deal, what % you expect our exports to the EU to have fallen by in 3 years?spatt77 said:
Well, for exchange for a FTA, which is mutually beneficial, we give them some access to our fishing waters and provide them with access to security information, which we currently provide 64% of all security Intel Europe wide and continue to provide Military security on Europe's border with Russia! seems fair enough to me!rick_chasey said:
Sure. ROW is not the leverage you think it is.Stevo_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.
Yes you're right there isn't suddenly going to be zero trade with the EU, and post-brexit it will still likely be the biggest trading partner by some distance for a long time.
The point is, if you already have a lot - there is a lot to lose.
If you don't, you don't.
So, as our resident Brexiter (as opposed to brexiteer, natch), where do you sit on the trade off for single market access and 'sovereignty' or whatever you want to call it?
I think me and SC have been quite clear we value the benefits of the single market vastly more than all the trade offs combined. You argued on this very thread years ago that being part of the single market was important. I get the impression that's changed now - so where would you be drawing the line?0 -
An immigration policy is not a wooly concept. Neither is controlling your fishing rights. Neither is a number of other things that sovereingty brings.briantrumpet said:It probably takes us back to page one if I ask what exactly will be 'won' from Brexit, given that we can't eat woolly concepts such as 'sovereignty'.
0 -
As usual you assume everybody else’s argument is the reverse of yours.Stevo_666 said:
I explained previously that there is some knee jerk assumption in here that other trade deals are not really worth much. I'm just challenging that as it makes no sense.surrey_commuter said:
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 members
Why the childlike reply?
Leaving the SM (and it’s trade deals with Japan, Mexico and Canada) so that you can join the CPTPP is nonsensical.
Not believing in the value of trade deals, like John/Spatt, makes more sense.0 -
Sure.john80 said:
I could post a long list of government decisions that were not in my interests over my lifetime. That is democracy. Some will be be better off some will not. Are you angry that zooms profits have gone up in Covid but other businesses have been negatively affected. It called life.rick_chasey said:
What about the people that didn’t want it but may also lose out?spatt77 said:
To be honest, and Remainers still dont get this, Im not bothered, if i`m a £100 a week worse off in 3 years time then so be it, if i loose my job, then so be it! I voted for this and I`ll live with the repercussions. In three years time and its all gone to ratshit then I will bow to your superior knowledge and tell myself how stupid i was to believe all the leavers! But i wouldnt hold ya breath if i was you;)surrey_commuter said:
Fair enough, could I ask, in the event of no deal, what % you expect our exports to the EU to have fallen by in 3 years?spatt77 said:
Well, for exchange for a FTA, which is mutually beneficial, we give them some access to our fishing waters and provide them with access to security information, which we currently provide 64% of all security Intel Europe wide and continue to provide Military security on Europe's border with Russia! seems fair enough to me!rick_chasey said:
Sure. ROW is not the leverage you think it is.Stevo_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.
Yes you're right there isn't suddenly going to be zero trade with the EU, and post-brexit it will still likely be the biggest trading partner by some distance for a long time.
The point is, if you already have a lot - there is a lot to lose.
If you don't, you don't.
So, as our resident Brexiter (as opposed to brexiteer, natch), where do you sit on the trade off for single market access and 'sovereignty' or whatever you want to call it?
I think me and SC have been quite clear we value the benefits of the single market vastly more than all the trade offs combined. You argued on this very thread years ago that being part of the single market was important. I get the impression that's changed now - so where would you be drawing the line?
That’s not really what I’m talking about here, but thank you for your thoughts.0 -
My suspicion is that to you, sovereignty is blue passports and a bit of flag waving. To others it is having an input on who governs their lives. I suspect there is a price most people would pay to have that, and that price would be higher depending on the circumstances in which they find themselves. For example, many in Hong Kong are willing to pay a high price for this.briantrumpet said:It probably takes us back to page one if I ask what exactly will be 'won' from Brexit, given that we can't eat woolly concepts such as 'sovereignty'.
It's perfectly reasonable for you to feel that the loss from Brexit is not worth the gain on offer in terms of sovereignty, but it is definitely not a woolly concept and it is something that most people would pay for in some circumstances0 -
As we have left via a unilateral decision, we clearly always had the sovereignty. It was never taken away.0
-
You are better than that.kingstongraham said:As we have left via a unilateral decision, we clearly always had the sovereignty. It was never taken away.
0 -
What's wrong with it? We had the sovereignty, now we've exercised it.TheBigBean said:
You are better than that.kingstongraham said:As we have left via a unilateral decision, we clearly always had the sovereignty. It was never taken away.
0 -
| think I pointed out way back on page whatever that we always had control over the things that we want control over. Our government just chose not to use that control.kingstongraham said:
What's wrong with it? We had the sovereignty, now we've exercised it.TheBigBean said:
You are better than that.kingstongraham said:As we have left via a unilateral decision, we clearly always had the sovereignty. It was never taken away.
The whole Brexit thing has been smoke and mirrors from the beginning.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
TheBigBean said:
My suspicion is that to you, sovereignty is blue passports and a bit of flag waving. To others it is having an input on who governs their lives. I suspect there is a price most people would pay to have that, and that price would be higher depending on the circumstances in which they find themselves. For example, many in Hong Kong are willing to pay a high price for this.briantrumpet said:It probably takes us back to page one if I ask what exactly will be 'won' from Brexit, given that we can't eat woolly concepts such as 'sovereignty'.
It's perfectly reasonable for you to feel that the loss from Brexit is not worth the gain on offer in terms of sovereignty, but it is definitely not a woolly concept and it is something that most people would pay for in some circumstances
So far we've got fish (0.1% of UK economy), immigration, and "having a input on who governs their lives", for which you draw an indirect comparison between the EU and a communist regime.
OK.0 -
The way I see your argument is as follows: There is no point to exercising a right to self-determination, because the existence of such a right, negates the point of exercising it.kingstongraham said:
What's wrong with it? We had the sovereignty, now we've exercised it.TheBigBean said:
You are better than that.kingstongraham said:As we have left via a unilateral decision, we clearly always had the sovereignty. It was never taken away.
The SNP are therefore mistaken about its desire to see an independent sovereign Scotland, because Scotland is already a independent sovereign country and is currently just choosing not to exercise such a decision.
0 -
I might be totally wrong here but is that not the entire basis of the NI peace agreement?TheBigBean said:
The way I see your argument is as follows: There is no point to exercising a right to self-determination, because the existence of such a right, negates the point of exercising it.kingstongraham said:
What's wrong with it? We had the sovereignty, now we've exercised it.TheBigBean said:
You are better than that.kingstongraham said:As we have left via a unilateral decision, we clearly always had the sovereignty. It was never taken away.
The SNP are therefore mistaken about its desire to see an independent sovereign Scotland, because Scotland is already a independent sovereign country and is currently just choosing not to exercise such a decision.0 -
Yes, that it just needs a simple majority. No, because the ROI had to accept that, for now, NI is part of the UK i.e. not a sovereign part of the ROI. Perhaps our resident expert can confirm @tailwindhomerick_chasey said:
I might be totally wrong here but is that not the entire basis of the NI peace agreement?TheBigBean said:
The way I see your argument is as follows: There is no point to exercising a right to self-determination, because the existence of such a right, negates the point of exercising it.kingstongraham said:
What's wrong with it? We had the sovereignty, now we've exercised it.TheBigBean said:
You are better than that.kingstongraham said:As we have left via a unilateral decision, we clearly always had the sovereignty. It was never taken away.
The SNP are therefore mistaken about its desire to see an independent sovereign Scotland, because Scotland is already a independent sovereign country and is currently just choosing not to exercise such a decision.
I would have used that example above, but then some clever person would miss the point completely and point out that a united Ireland requires the consent of ROI as well, so it is not unilateral decision by NI.0 -
am i missing the point but Scotland had a need for a referendum imposed upon it by a union whereas the UK chose to have a referendum as the union had said they could go whenever they wantTheBigBean said:
Yes, that it just needs a simple majority. No, because the ROI had to accept that, for now, NI is part of the UK i.e. not a sovereign part of the ROI. Perhaps our resident expert can confirm @tailwindhomerick_chasey said:
I might be totally wrong here but is that not the entire basis of the NI peace agreement?TheBigBean said:
The way I see your argument is as follows: There is no point to exercising a right to self-determination, because the existence of such a right, negates the point of exercising it.kingstongraham said:
What's wrong with it? We had the sovereignty, now we've exercised it.TheBigBean said:
You are better than that.kingstongraham said:As we have left via a unilateral decision, we clearly always had the sovereignty. It was never taken away.
The SNP are therefore mistaken about its desire to see an independent sovereign Scotland, because Scotland is already a independent sovereign country and is currently just choosing not to exercise such a decision.
I would have used that example above, but then some clever person would miss the point completely and point out that a united Ireland requires the consent of ROI as well, so it is not unilateral decision by NI.
0 -
No, I'm saying that merely a nebulous desire for "sovereignty" shouldn't be a justification for leaving the EU.TheBigBean said:
The way I see your argument is as follows: There is no point to exercising a right to self-determination, because the existence of such a right, negates the point of exercising it.kingstongraham said:
What's wrong with it? We had the sovereignty, now we've exercised it.TheBigBean said:
You are better than that.kingstongraham said:As we have left via a unilateral decision, we clearly always had the sovereignty. It was never taken away.
The SNP are therefore mistaken about its desire to see an independent sovereign Scotland, because Scotland is already a independent sovereign country and is currently just choosing not to exercise such a decision.
Any sovereignty justification should be that those who wanted to leave didn't like some of the specific things that were done with the sovereignty we had decided to temporarily pool with the other members, and that these specifics were worth the cost.0 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_IrelandTheBigBean said:
Yes, that it just needs a simple majority. No, because the ROI had to accept that, for now, NI is part of the UK i.e. not a sovereign part of the ROI. Perhaps our resident expert can confirm @tailwindhomerick_chasey said:
I might be totally wrong here but is that not the entire basis of the NI peace agreement?TheBigBean said:
The way I see your argument is as follows: There is no point to exercising a right to self-determination, because the existence of such a right, negates the point of exercising it.kingstongraham said:
What's wrong with it? We had the sovereignty, now we've exercised it.TheBigBean said:
You are better than that.kingstongraham said:As we have left via a unilateral decision, we clearly always had the sovereignty. It was never taken away.
The SNP are therefore mistaken about its desire to see an independent sovereign Scotland, because Scotland is already a independent sovereign country and is currently just choosing not to exercise such a decision.
I would have used that example above, but then some clever person would miss the point completely and point out that a united Ireland requires the consent of ROI as well, so it is not unilateral decision by NI.
Article 2
The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.
Article 3
Pending the re-integration of the national territory, and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstát Éireann and the like extra-territorial effect.
Was replaced by
Article 2
It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.
Article 3
It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.
Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
