BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Stevo_666

Of course if said banks are lending in Euros rather than Sterling, then it tend to will be cheaper as Eurozone interest rates are negative to help prop up the slightly fragile economy over there.

On a related point, I notice the GBP/EUR exchange rate nudged past the 1.20 level recently. Seems to be a direction of travel in that looking at the graphs.

tailwindhome

https://twitter.com/SJAMcBride/status/1486828587382722564?t=7-VRYtC-XRwtSRmlqvsDmg&s=19

tailwindhome

rick_chasey

It's the 21st century. The route to prosperity is open mindedness, and free trading.

The rest is a myth.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

It's the 21st century. The route to prosperity is open mindedness, and free trading.

The rest is a myth.

Of course the free trading needs to be in the global context to maximise the benefits.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

It's the 21st century. The route to prosperity is open mindedness, and free trading.

The rest is a myth.

Of course the free trading needs to be in the global context to maximise the benefits.

And that includes the realities of trade, including the Gravity of Trade (your myopia on this phenomenon is remarkable), and the geopolitical challenges around the world.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

It's the 21st century. The route to prosperity is open mindedness, and free trading.

The rest is a myth.

Of course the free trading needs to be in the global context to maximise the benefits.

better to see it as reducing barriers to trade

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

It's the 21st century. The route to prosperity is open mindedness, and free trading.

The rest is a myth.

Of course the free trading needs to be in the global context to maximise the benefits.

And that includes the realities of trade, including the Gravity of Trade (your myopia on this phenomenon is remarkable), and the geopolitical challenges around the world.

And the oft repeated point that over 85% of the global economy sits outside the EU. And is growing at a faster rate. You need to be big picture and long term when looking at this, rather than 'little European'.

kingstongraham

That argument doesn't make any sense unless there are major markets that the UK gets substantially more preferential access to than we did in the EU. As far as I know, German companies sell to global markets.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

That argument doesn't make any sense unless there are major markets that the UK gets substantially more preferential access to than we did in the EU. As far as I know, German companies sell to global markets.

Regardless of preferential access, size of markets and potential are clearly relevant. For example, our trade with the US is very substantial - more than with any other country IIRC, but without preferential access.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

That argument doesn't make any sense unless there are major markets that the UK gets substantially more preferential access to than we did in the EU. As far as I know, German companies sell to global markets.

Regardless of preferential access, size of markets and potential are clearly relevant. For example, our trade with the US is very substantial - more than with any other country IIRC, but without preferential access.

Not particularly relevant to a conversation about the impact of a policy to increase barriers to a different location.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

It's the 21st century. The route to prosperity is open mindedness, and free trading.

The rest is a myth.

Of course the free trading needs to be in the global context to maximise the benefits.

And that includes the realities of trade, including the Gravity of Trade (your myopia on this phenomenon is remarkable), and the geopolitical challenges around the world.

And the oft repeated point that over 85% of the global economy sits outside the EU. And is growing at a faster rate. You need to be big picture and long term when looking at this, rather than 'little European'.

Graaaaavity ooooof traaaaaade

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

It's the 21st century. The route to prosperity is open mindedness, and free trading.

The rest is a myth.

Of course the free trading needs to be in the global context to maximise the benefits.

And that includes the realities of trade, including the Gravity of Trade (your myopia on this phenomenon is remarkable), and the geopolitical challenges around the world.

And the oft repeated point that over 85% of the global economy sits outside the EU. And is growing at a faster rate. You need to be big picture and long term when looking at this, rather than 'little European'.

Graaaaavity ooooof traaaaaade

Being patronising shows you've run out of arguments pretty quick. Try making a decent rebuttal instead.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

That argument doesn't make any sense unless there are major markets that the UK gets substantially more preferential access to than we did in the EU. As far as I know, German companies sell to global markets.

Regardless of preferential access, size of markets and potential are clearly relevant. For example, our trade with the US is very substantial - more than with any other country IIRC, but without preferential access.

Not particularly relevant to a conversation about the impact of a policy to increase barriers to a different location.

We aren't increasing barriers to trade with the rest of the world, so what's your point here?

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

It's the 21st century. The route to prosperity is open mindedness, and free trading.

The rest is a myth.

Of course the free trading needs to be in the global context to maximise the benefits.

And that includes the realities of trade, including the Gravity of Trade (your myopia on this phenomenon is remarkable), and the geopolitical challenges around the world.

And the oft repeated point that over 85% of the global economy sits outside the EU. And is growing at a faster rate. You need to be big picture and long term when looking at this, rather than 'little European'.

Graaaaavity ooooof traaaaaade

Being patronising shows you've run out of arguments pretty quick. Try making a decent rebuttal instead.

We've gone round the houses. On this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade

The gravity model of international trade in international economics is a model that, in its traditional form, predicts bilateral trade flows based on the economic sizes and distance between two units. Research shows that there is "overwhelming evidence that trade tends to fall with distance."[1]

The reason why the UK trades the most with the EU is because it's on the doorstep.

That will never change.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

It's the 21st century. The route to prosperity is open mindedness, and free trading.

The rest is a myth.

Of course the free trading needs to be in the global context to maximise the benefits.

And that includes the realities of trade, including the Gravity of Trade (your myopia on this phenomenon is remarkable), and the geopolitical challenges around the world.

And the oft repeated point that over 85% of the global economy sits outside the EU. And is growing at a faster rate. You need to be big picture and long term when looking at this, rather than 'little European'.

Graaaaavity ooooof traaaaaade

Being patronising shows you've run out of arguments pretty quick. Try making a decent rebuttal instead.

We've gone round the houses. On this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade

The gravity model of international trade in international economics is a model that, in its traditional form, predicts bilateral trade flows based on the economic sizes and distance between two units. Research shows that there is "overwhelming evidence that trade tends to fall with distance."[1]

The reason why the UK trades the most with the EU is because it's on the doorstep.

That will never change.

Really? There may be a correlation for shifting physical product, but given the global nature of supply chain these days it is becoming less important. (We have no issues shipping stuff around the globe for starters).

Also lot of service type activity is done remotely and has not hindered our trade with the US for example which is pur largest trading partner country. And you will know that we are predominantly a service economy.

Reality trumps theory again.

rick_chasey

*the model is confirmed by evidence**

**the model and the evidence supporting it has remained reliably constant since it was first conceived, with only marginal changes due to globalisation**

So no, reality confirms the theory.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/management/2018/11/09/can-brexit-defy-gravity-it-is-still-much-cheaper-to-trade-with-neighbouring-countries/

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

That argument doesn't make any sense unless there are major markets that the UK gets substantially more preferential access to than we did in the EU. As far as I know, German companies sell to global markets.

Regardless of preferential access, size of markets and potential are clearly relevant. For example, our trade with the US is very substantial - more than with any other country IIRC, but without preferential access.

Not particularly relevant to a conversation about the impact of a policy to increase barriers to a different location.

We aren't increasing barriers to trade with the rest of the world, so what's your point here?

Us keeping the same barriers to trade with the USA has no impact on whether we have in aggregate increased overall barriers to trade with the world outside the UK.

Jezyboy

Trading services to California is a pita. For some reason they're asleep half the day.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

*the model is confirmed by evidence**

**the model and the evidence supporting it has remained reliably constant since it was first conceived, with only marginal changes due to globalisation**

So no, reality confirms the theory.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/management/2018/11/09/can-brexit-defy-gravity-it-is-still-much-cheaper-to-trade-with-neighbouring-countries/

The report focuses on goods and not on(our predominant sector). As you well know, it costs very little to deliver say financial services remotely. As the report says:
We concentrate our discussion on trade in goods; we consider services in a subsequent post."

It also questions it's own relevance I the digital abe, given that (bother own admission) the studies on which the report is based are over 20 years old:
"In particular, do the effects of gravity remain as strong now, in this age of the internet, global value chains and populism, as they did when much of the data behind these studies were undertaken twenty or more years ago.

Also the report does mention one other key point, that of linguistic, cultural similarities etc - which would go some way to explaining why the US is our largest trade partner despite the distance.

And while there is some impact of proximity, you are again omitting the point that the bits that are closest are over 6x smaller than the rest - which will outweigh the proximity factor. Especially as the EU slice of the global pie is shrinking over time due to its ower growth rate.

If you looks the levels of UK trade with EU vs rest of world, it is headed in a direction that backs up my point. And this was happening before Brexit.

So, no it is very definitely not proven in our case in the present time. Thanks for the link - you should maybe have read it more thoroughly before posting though

Stevo_666

Jezyboy said:

Trading services to California is a pita. For some reason they're asleep half the day.

We find it easier trading with the US than trading with a fair few parts of Europe.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

That argument doesn't make any sense unless there are major markets that the UK gets substantially more preferential access to than we did in the EU. As far as I know, German companies sell to global markets.

Regardless of preferential access, size of markets and potential are clearly relevant. For example, our trade with the US is very substantial - more than with any other country IIRC, but without preferential access.

Not particularly relevant to a conversation about the impact of a policy to increase barriers to a different location.

We aren't increasing barriers to trade with the rest of the world, so what's your point here?

Us keeping the same barriers to trade with the USA has no impact on whether we have in aggregate increased overall barriers to trade with the world outside the UK.

If you look at what we have done with the new UK customs tariffs and our new trade agreements you should see that is moving in the right direction re rest of world.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

That argument doesn't make any sense unless there are major markets that the UK gets substantially more preferential access to than we did in the EU. As far as I know, German companies sell to global markets.

Regardless of preferential access, size of markets and potential are clearly relevant. For example, our trade with the US is very substantial - more than with any other country IIRC, but without preferential access.

Not particularly relevant to a conversation about the impact of a policy to increase barriers to a different location.

We aren't increasing barriers to trade with the rest of the world, so what's your point here?

Us keeping the same barriers to trade with the USA has no impact on whether we have in aggregate increased overall barriers to trade with the world outside the UK.

If you look at what we have done with the new UK customs tariffs and our new trade agreements you should see that is moving in the right direction re rest of world.

world includes EU.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

That argument doesn't make any sense unless there are major markets that the UK gets substantially more preferential access to than we did in the EU. As far as I know, German companies sell to global markets.

Regardless of preferential access, size of markets and potential are clearly relevant. For example, our trade with the US is very substantial - more than with any other country IIRC, but without preferential access.

Not particularly relevant to a conversation about the impact of a policy to increase barriers to a different location.

We aren't increasing barriers to trade with the rest of the world, so what's your point here?

Us keeping the same barriers to trade with the USA has no impact on whether we have in aggregate increased overall barriers to trade with the world outside the UK.

If you look at what we have done with the new UK customs tariffs and our new trade agreements you should see that is moving in the right direction re rest of world.

world includes EU.

See my point above about how much(or little) of the world the EU comprises, economically speaking. Which was the main part of my original point.

rick_chasey

To give you some context, trade in goods and services with the US is only double trade in goods and services with the Netherlands

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

That argument doesn't make any sense unless there are major markets that the UK gets substantially more preferential access to than we did in the EU. As far as I know, German companies sell to global markets.

Regardless of preferential access, size of markets and potential are clearly relevant. For example, our trade with the US is very substantial - more than with any other country IIRC, but without preferential access.

Not particularly relevant to a conversation about the impact of a policy to increase barriers to a different location.

We aren't increasing barriers to trade with the rest of the world, so what's your point here?

Us keeping the same barriers to trade with the USA has no impact on whether we have in aggregate increased overall barriers to trade with the world outside the UK.

If you look at what we have done with the new UK customs tariffs and our new trade agreements you should see that is moving in the right direction re rest of world.

world includes EU.

See my point above about how much(or little) of the world the EU comprises, economically speaking. Which was the main part of my original point.

I think you said 15%

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

That argument doesn't make any sense unless there are major markets that the UK gets substantially more preferential access to than we did in the EU. As far as I know, German companies sell to global markets.

Regardless of preferential access, size of markets and potential are clearly relevant. For example, our trade with the US is very substantial - more than with any other country IIRC, but without preferential access.

Not particularly relevant to a conversation about the impact of a policy to increase barriers to a different location.

We aren't increasing barriers to trade with the rest of the world, so what's your point here?

Us keeping the same barriers to trade with the USA has no impact on whether we have in aggregate increased overall barriers to trade with the world outside the UK.

If you look at what we have done with the new UK customs tariffs and our new trade agreements you should see that is moving in the right direction re rest of world.

world includes EU.

See my point above about how much(or little) of the world the EU comprises, economically speaking. Which was the main part of my original point.

So if it is not proximity why do we do circa 50% of our trade with our nearest neighbours who only make up 15% of the global economy.

briantrumpet

Real steaming Brexshit.

https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1487526918333382664

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

To give you some context, trade in goods and services with the US is only double trade in goods and services with the Netherlands

Read my posts above about services as you seem you be missing my point. You should be aware that the logistical aspects of shipping goods do not apply to our predominant sector.

Also the NL figures are known to be skewed as a lot of product goes via that country.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

That argument doesn't make any sense unless there are major markets that the UK gets substantially more preferential access to than we did in the EU. As far as I know, German companies sell to global markets.

Regardless of preferential access, size of markets and potential are clearly relevant. For example, our trade with the US is very substantial - more than with any other country IIRC, but without preferential access.

Not particularly relevant to a conversation about the impact of a policy to increase barriers to a different location.

We aren't increasing barriers to trade with the rest of the world, so what's your point here?

Us keeping the same barriers to trade with the USA has no impact on whether we have in aggregate increased overall barriers to trade with the world outside the UK.

If you look at what we have done with the new UK customs tariffs and our new trade agreements you should see that is moving in the right direction re rest of world.

world includes EU.

See my point above about how much(or little) of the world the EU comprises, economically speaking. Which was the main part of my original point.

I think you said 15%

Thereabouts. I think it was 15 when we were a member state but clearly has shrunk after Brexit. Still, much smaller than the rest ofthe world whichever way you measure it, no?