BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
If we look at the 85% number
45% of it is USA/China/India where there is no immediate hope of a deal
10% is Korea/Canada/Japan where we inherited deals
5% is the UK
3% is Russia/Iran
There is a good reason why we are d1cking around with the Anzacs and that is because there is little point in looking elsewhere0 -
Brexit positive - the UK is consulting on a scheme to offer compensation for internal flights delayed by more than one hour (but less than three).0
-
Britain is about to exploit one of the benefits of Brexit – the freedom to impose sanctions without waiting for the most reluctant member of the EU to be brought on board.
The UK became sovereign over its sanctions policy on leaving the EU, giving London the ability to remain in lockstep with US policy.
Hence the tough policy on Putin’s cronies to be unveiled by the foreign secretary Liz Truss on Monday is likely to be very similar to the package being trailed in the US by the Biden administration.
None of this would be implemented unless and until Russia invaded Ukraine, although there has been a debate in the US about whether some of the measures should be announced regardless of Russian troop movements.
The ability of the UK to set out powerful deterrent sanctions is a sign of UK agility and flexibility post Brexit in stark contrast with the inability of the EU to do the same. Standing alongside the UK defence minister Ben Wallace, the Hungarian defence minister Tibor Benko signalled a looming problem for the EU. He said the prime interest was not sanctions or conflict, but dialogue, before adding various criticisms of the way in which sanctions policy is selectively enforced.
Hungary has been one the countries most critical about sanctions on Russia and could now repeat this role. The manner in which the EU takes decisions in foreign policy – through unanimity – requires the EU to run at the speed of the slowest.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/jan/31/ukraine-russia-crisis-live-diplomatic-face-off-expected-at-first-un-security-council-meeting0 -
"The UK became sovereign over its sanctions policy on leaving the EU, giving London the ability to remain in lockstep with US policy"
Lol
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Said it way back at the beginning. What can we sell now that we couldn't sell before?morstar said:
G7 nations are where the trade is. China and US cover the bulk of the trade outside Eu and they aren’t exactly battering the door down.
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 -
The "local boozer" analogy might help...Stevo_666 said:
We aren't increasing barriers to trade with the rest of the world, so what's your point here?kingstongraham said:
Not particularly relevant to a conversation about the impact of a policy to increase barriers to a different location.Stevo_666 said:
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 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.
For years, you've had 27 pubs in your village all within walking distance and all with no restrictions on entry. 2 hours walk down the road are some other pubs - call them the "Australia Arms", the "Japan Arms" and the "New Zealand Arms". They have some onerous but not insurmountable restrictions on gaining access. So whilst some folk are up for a long walk for a quick pint, many folk in your village only ever walk to the nearby pubs for a "cheeky one" as it's fast and convenient.
Some bright spark then persuades your village pubs to impose restrictions on you and manages to get the restrictions on the pubs 2 hours down the road reduced a little. Net result, folk in your village tend to stay home more as they can't be a*sed to fanny around with the new restrictions and don't want to have to make a weekend of it just to go the Australia Arms etc.
Net result = reduced pub-going in aggregate from folk in your village.0 -
Remember my original statement was a simplification to make a point as I've already said.surrey_commuter said:
But that is the point of the single marketStevo_666 said:
That's why I said it was a simplification.surrey_commuter said:
I am struggling to think of an industry where they would see the other 180 countries as one humongous blockStevo_666 said:
Not really for me to say exactly what we should focus on specifically, but common sense applies re looking at the largest markets, those with higher growth potential and those where market share is lower.rjsterry said:Stevo_666 said:
A bit of context is needed sometimes. Nobody said it doesn't matter, but it is far from the be all and end all that the Brexit debate might lead some people to believe.rjsterry said:
Depends what you sell, but 1/7 is hardly trivial. But let's pretend the green bit doesn't matter.Stevo_666 said:
I'm waiting for the 2021 stats tbh. It is worth remembering that the City's main opportunities lie outside the EU, given that the EU only represents around 13% of the global economy (and shrinking). So will be interesting to see the overall, picture, while remembering that covid may also have a negative effect impact all round.kingstongraham said:
There must have been another quarter of results since that article - still holding up well?Stevo_666 said:
Edit: not according to the updated version of the source for that article.
It's a fascinating insight into the writing of these ONS reports to see the same thing being referenced to explain completely opposite movements.
Q1: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/articles/theimpactsofeuexitandcoronaviruscovid19onuktradeinservices/july2021Financial services have seen growth in exports to EU countries of £0.08 billion (1.4%) and a reduction in imports from EU countries by £0.57 billion (35.2%) in Quarter 1 2021 compared with Quarter 1 2019.
As part of the TCA, administrative barriers and limitations faced by EU and UK investors, service suppliers and business travellers are kept to a minimum. This may encourage trade in services and may have contributed to the growth in financial services exports to the EU.
Q2:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/articles/theimpactsofeuexitandcoronaviruscovid19onuktradeinservices/november2021In Quarter 2 (April to June) 2021, trade in financial services declined for both exports and imports by £1.5 billion (negative 9.7%) and £0.3 billion (negative 6.3%) respectively compared with Quarter 2 2019. Non-EU exports increased £0.5 billion (5.1%) and imports £0.01 billion (0.4%) since Quarter 2 2019, whereas EU exports and imports declined £2.0 billion (negative 30.6%) and £0.3 billion (negative 21.3%) respectively.
This fall in financial services trade with the EU is partly because of EU exit-related rule changes, with the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement (TCA) containing limited provision for access in financial services.
The other 6/7ths is a pretty significant, no?
So, what/where are/should we be targeting and how will we supply that market? We're already filling lots of services roles from abroad.
And do we really want to rely even more on services exports when that will just lead to more importing of labour to do all the other work.
So far we've given away market access to Australia in return for not very much, and... what else? If we really are aiming to refocus trade policy you'd hope to see something a bit more ambitious and specific.
Look at it this way (bit of a simplification but I believe the comparison is valid). If you were a global business and you had 2 market segments. The first one is approx 1/7th of the total market, is growing relatively slowly amd you already have a decent market share. The second is approx 6/7ths of the total market, growing faster than the first one and you have a lower market share. Which one would you focus on?
It's a pretty easy question to answer...
Although some people on here have argued that 27 countries should be seen as one big block..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
They do, for example the agreement with EFTA mentioned in the link below:surrey_commuter said:
I thought that no trade deal had ever included services. The Govt line is that the City is so big that it does not need Govt help.Stevo_666 said:
Bottom line is the EU deal is done and highly unlikely to change fundamentally so we need to focus on what we can now change - i.e. rest of world.rjsterry said:
Sure. I would imagine any business that wants to think of itself as global is already doing as you say and looking at these markets. Where a government can influence that is obviously in negotiating better access to those markets, which was a pretty big part of the Brexit prospectus. We're now 5 years on and if we really are interested in exploiting the advantages of being outside the EU we should at least have an overall strategy for this - specific sectors and countries that we want to prioritise. So far the only major deal we've done is to inhibit our access to one of our big markets and in the other column we have a few rollover deals which change nothing and the giveaway to Australian farmers. All of which suggests that the current lot aren't actually interested in pursuing this.Stevo_666 said:
Not really for me to say exactly what we should focus on specifically, but common sense applies re looking at the largest markets, those with higher growth potential and those where market share is lower.rjsterry said:Stevo_666 said:
A bit of context is needed sometimes. Nobody said it doesn't matter, but it is far from the be all and end all that the Brexit debate might lead some people to believe.rjsterry said:
Depends what you sell, but 1/7 is hardly trivial. But let's pretend the green bit doesn't matter.Stevo_666 said:
I'm waiting for the 2021 stats tbh. It is worth remembering that the City's main opportunities lie outside the EU, given that the EU only represents around 13% of the global economy (and shrinking). So will be interesting to see the overall, picture, while remembering that covid may also have a negative effect impact all round.kingstongraham said:
There must have been another quarter of results since that article - still holding up well?Stevo_666 said:
Edit: not according to the updated version of the source for that article.
It's a fascinating insight into the writing of these ONS reports to see the same thing being referenced to explain completely opposite movements.
Q1: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/articles/theimpactsofeuexitandcoronaviruscovid19onuktradeinservices/july2021Financial services have seen growth in exports to EU countries of £0.08 billion (1.4%) and a reduction in imports from EU countries by £0.57 billion (35.2%) in Quarter 1 2021 compared with Quarter 1 2019.
As part of the TCA, administrative barriers and limitations faced by EU and UK investors, service suppliers and business travellers are kept to a minimum. This may encourage trade in services and may have contributed to the growth in financial services exports to the EU.
Q2:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/articles/theimpactsofeuexitandcoronaviruscovid19onuktradeinservices/november2021In Quarter 2 (April to June) 2021, trade in financial services declined for both exports and imports by £1.5 billion (negative 9.7%) and £0.3 billion (negative 6.3%) respectively compared with Quarter 2 2019. Non-EU exports increased £0.5 billion (5.1%) and imports £0.01 billion (0.4%) since Quarter 2 2019, whereas EU exports and imports declined £2.0 billion (negative 30.6%) and £0.3 billion (negative 21.3%) respectively.
This fall in financial services trade with the EU is partly because of EU exit-related rule changes, with the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement (TCA) containing limited provision for access in financial services.
The other 6/7ths is a pretty significant, no?
So, what/where are/should we be targeting and how will we supply that market? We're already filling lots of services roles from abroad.
And do we really want to rely even more on services exports when that will just lead to more importing of labour to do all the other work.
So far we've given away market access to Australia in return for not very much, and... what else? If we really are aiming to refocus trade policy you'd hope to see something a bit more ambitious and specific.
Look at it this way (bit of a simplification but I believe the comparison is valid). If you were a global business and you had 2 market segments. The first one is approx 1/7th of the total market, is growing relatively slowly amd you already have a decent market share. The second is approx 6/7ths of the total market, growing faster than the first one and you have a lower market share. Which one would you focus on?
It's a pretty easy question to answer...
To some extent the trade deals we can now cut should look at what we want to achieve on a case by case basis for each individual trade partner. In terms of goods that may vary quite a lot. Overall though given our service predominance we should try to include services in future trade deals as far as we can (and subject to individual circumstances).
The problem with bespoke deals is that most have a most favoured nation clause in them so that if you give better terms to one ountry you have to give it to all others you have a FTA with
https://ey.com/en_uk/global-trade/status-of-uk-trade-agreements-with-non-eu-countries
The MFN only applies to normal trading arrangements, not to Free Trade Agreements. So no issue there."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
How is that assertion relevant to my point?rick_chasey said:Yet the UK is relaxing rules that will make money laundering more easy
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
How?rick_chasey said:Yet the UK is relaxing rules that will make money laundering more easy
0 -
Please explain.rick_chasey said:Russian sanctions.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
See above re services and remote delivery. 2 hours down the road is no longer an issue when you can teleport there at the speed of light.wallace_and_gromit said:
The "local boozer" analogy might help...Stevo_666 said:
We aren't increasing barriers to trade with the rest of the world, so what's your point here?kingstongraham said:
Not particularly relevant to a conversation about the impact of a policy to increase barriers to a different location.Stevo_666 said:
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 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.
For years, you've had 27 pubs in your village all within walking distance and all with no restrictions on entry. 2 hours walk down the road are some other pubs - call them the "Australia Arms", the "Japan Arms" and the "New Zealand Arms". They have some onerous but not insurmountable restrictions on gaining access. So whilst some folk are up for a long walk for a quick pint, many folk in your village only ever walk to the nearby pubs for a "cheeky one" as it's fast and convenient.
Some bright spark then persuades your village pubs to impose restrictions on you and manages to get the restrictions on the pubs 2 hours down the road reduced a little. Net result, folk in your village tend to stay home more as they can't be a*sed to fanny around with the new restrictions and don't want to have to make a weekend of it just to go the Australia Arms etc.
Net result = reduced pub-going in aggregate from folk in your village.
And of course there is potentially more beer on offer at the further flung pubs."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It's not relevant to your point.Stevo_666 said:
Please explain.rick_chasey said:Russian sanctions.
0 -
OK unless you want to make the sovereignty case every time, can you refer to actual benefits rather than mooted consultations which inevitably are cast aside?TheBigBean said:Brexit positive - the UK is consulting on a scheme to offer compensation for internal flights delayed by more than one hour (but less than three).
0 -
Whatever. You've made no point then.rick_chasey said:
It's not relevant to your point.Stevo_666 said:
Please explain.rick_chasey said:Russian sanctions.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
No. Legislation takes time. Most consultations turn into law.rick_chasey said:
OK unless you want to make the sovereignty case every time, can you refer to actual benefits rather than mooted consultations which inevitably are cast aside?TheBigBean said:Brexit positive - the UK is consulting on a scheme to offer compensation for internal flights delayed by more than one hour (but less than three).
0 -
Much as I think Brexit is a terrible idea, this is the crux of the "global Britain" argument.surrey_commuter said:If we look at the 85% number
45% of it is USA/China/India where there is no immediate hope of a deal
10% is Korea/Canada/Japan where we inherited deals
5% is the UK
3% is Russia/Iran
There is a good reason why we are d1cking around with the Anzacs and that is because there is little point in looking elsewhere
Are we going to be able to get better deals on our own for our specific needs than we will as part of the EU?
The pros are we can create deals focussed on our strengths and our priorities at the timescale we need. The negatives are that the market you're negotiating on behalf of is significantly smaller so the cards in your hands are weaker. In global terms, the UK is a bit part player than can be written off if costs get too high; the EU has the scale to make that bite far harder.
Much has been made of Europes % of global trade shrinking over time but that will be the case for the USA too. Brazil, India, Pakistan, Indonesia and more populated African countries like Egypt & Nigeria will all increase over time. China is of course already there and still increasing. So question being can we strike the right trade deal with them to "get in early and get the advantage" or does the fact we are now a significantly smaller market bump us down their priorities? If the net effect is an advantage will it offset the loss caused by friction trading with the EU?0 -
You need to take a longer term view on some of these. As I've said before, no point fretting over the EU situation as that won't materially change. However crying over spilt milk is a Cake Stop speciality, as this thread repeatedly demonstrates.surrey_commuter said:If we look at the 85% number
45% of it is USA/China/India where there is no immediate hope of a deal
10% is Korea/Canada/Japan where we inherited deals
5% is the UK
3% is Russia/Iran
There is a good reason why we are d1cking around with the Anzacs and that is because there is little point in looking elsewhere"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What is the longer term view we're missing?Stevo_666 said:
You need to take a longer term view on some of these. As I've said before, no point fretting over the EU situation as that won't materially change. However crying over spilt milk is a Cake Stop speciality, as this thread repeatedly demonstrates.surrey_commuter said:If we look at the 85% number
45% of it is USA/China/India where there is no immediate hope of a deal
10% is Korea/Canada/Japan where we inherited deals
5% is the UK
3% is Russia/Iran
There is a good reason why we are d1cking around with the Anzacs and that is because there is little point in looking elsewhere0 -
The longer term possibilities of trade deals in the 85% or so of the global economy outside of the EU (where we have not already secured trade deals clearly).rick_chasey said:
What is the longer term view we're missing?Stevo_666 said:
You need to take a longer term view on some of these. As I've said before, no point fretting over the EU situation as that won't materially change. However crying over spilt milk is a Cake Stop speciality, as this thread repeatedly demonstrates.surrey_commuter said:If we look at the 85% number
45% of it is USA/China/India where there is no immediate hope of a deal
10% is Korea/Canada/Japan where we inherited deals
5% is the UK
3% is Russia/Iran
There is a good reason why we are d1cking around with the Anzacs and that is because there is little point in looking elsewhere"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So how does this work in practice? For comparison you'd have to compare the trade deals the EU has with the remaining 85% and how the UK could improve on that.Stevo_666 said:
The longer term possibilities of trade deals in the 85% or so of the global economy outside of the EU (where we have not already secured trade deals clearly).rick_chasey said:
What is the longer term view we're missing?Stevo_666 said:
You need to take a longer term view on some of these. As I've said before, no point fretting over the EU situation as that won't materially change. However crying over spilt milk is a Cake Stop speciality, as this thread repeatedly demonstrates.surrey_commuter said:If we look at the 85% number
45% of it is USA/China/India where there is no immediate hope of a deal
10% is Korea/Canada/Japan where we inherited deals
5% is the UK
3% is Russia/Iran
There is a good reason why we are d1cking around with the Anzacs and that is because there is little point in looking elsewhere
After all, the EU is not static and it also arranges trade deals. Your logic works also for countries the UK wants to trade with. Does it prioritise the UK that represents 3% of the global market or the EU that represents 15%?
You'd also have to explain how the UK can overcome the challenges of not being part of the biggest market and so not being a) a big priority and b) the leverage that being a big player brings. I get there will be divergence and you can be more "bespoke" but at what cost? The fact that the existing deals the EU struck are being rolled over doesn't show that the gains here are obvious and large.
0 -
If we look at the 85% numberStevo_666 said:
The longer term possibilities of trade deals in the 85% or so of the global economy outside of the EU (where we have not already secured trade deals clearly).rick_chasey said:
What is the longer term view we're missing?Stevo_666 said:
You need to take a longer term view on some of these. As I've said before, no point fretting over the EU situation as that won't materially change. However crying over spilt milk is a Cake Stop speciality, as this thread repeatedly demonstrates.surrey_commuter said:If we look at the 85% number
45% of it is USA/China/India where there is no immediate hope of a deal
10% is Korea/Canada/Japan where we inherited deals
5% is the UK
3% is Russia/Iran
There is a good reason why we are d1cking around with the Anzacs and that is because there is little point in looking elsewhere
45% of it is USA/China/India where there is no immediate hope of a deal
5% is the UK
3% is Russia/Iran0 -
Spilt milk.0
-
Time to stop banging on about the EU - that trade deal is done. As I've already said, we should focus on the deals that we can do. We have already done quite a few including the rollovers so clearly it is do-able. With the added advantage that our deals can be tailored to what the UK wants/needs and not be some compromise job to keep 27 countries happy.rick_chasey said:
So how does this work in practice? For comparison you'd have to compare the trade deals the EU has with the remaining 85% and how the UK could improve on that.Stevo_666 said:
The longer term possibilities of trade deals in the 85% or so of the global economy outside of the EU (where we have not already secured trade deals clearly).rick_chasey said:
What is the longer term view we're missing?Stevo_666 said:
You need to take a longer term view on some of these. As I've said before, no point fretting over the EU situation as that won't materially change. However crying over spilt milk is a Cake Stop speciality, as this thread repeatedly demonstrates.surrey_commuter said:If we look at the 85% number
45% of it is USA/China/India where there is no immediate hope of a deal
10% is Korea/Canada/Japan where we inherited deals
5% is the UK
3% is Russia/Iran
There is a good reason why we are d1cking around with the Anzacs and that is because there is little point in looking elsewhere
After all, the EU is not static and it also arranges trade deals. Your logic works also for countries the UK wants to trade with. Does it prioritise the UK that represents 3% of the global market or the EU that represents 15%?
You'd also have to explain how the UK can overcome the challenges of not being part of the biggest market and so not being a) a big priority and b) the leverage that being a big player brings. I get there will be divergence and you can be more "bespoke" but at what cost? The fact that the existing deals the EU struck are being rolled over doesn't show that the gains here are obvious and large.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Groundhog day - see my post above about taking a longer term view.surrey_commuter said:
If we look at the 85% numberStevo_666 said:
The longer term possibilities of trade deals in the 85% or so of the global economy outside of the EU (where we have not already secured trade deals clearly).rick_chasey said:
What is the longer term view we're missing?Stevo_666 said:
You need to take a longer term view on some of these. As I've said before, no point fretting over the EU situation as that won't materially change. However crying over spilt milk is a Cake Stop speciality, as this thread repeatedly demonstrates.surrey_commuter said:If we look at the 85% number
45% of it is USA/China/India where there is no immediate hope of a deal
10% is Korea/Canada/Japan where we inherited deals
5% is the UK
3% is Russia/Iran
There is a good reason why we are d1cking around with the Anzacs and that is because there is little point in looking elsewhere
45% of it is USA/China/India where there is no immediate hope of a deal
5% is the UK
3% is Russia/Iran"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I guess you're talking to Rick?kingstongraham said:Spilt milk.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Bingokingstongraham said:Spilt milk.
0 -
?kingstongraham said:
Bingokingstongraham said:Spilt milk.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
