BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
No point talking about the deal we have with the EU being worse for trade than what we had before, because we've left.Stevo_666 said:
?kingstongraham said:
Bingokingstongraham said:Spilt milk.
Anything that politicians have already said or done is of no relevance.0 -
your 85% includes the UKStevo_666 said:
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/Iran0 -
I’m closing my coffee shop in London because most of the UK population lives outside London.
I can do more business elsewhere.0 -
Seems sensible with all the levelling up.morstar said:I’m closing my coffee shop in London because most of the UK population lives outside London.
I can do more business elsewhere.0 -
No, you keep the coffee shop but only deliver, and only to people outside of London.morstar said:I’m closing my coffee shop in London because most of the UK population lives outside London.
I can do more business elsewhere.0 -
If you want to use your own slightly adjusted percentage, no problem. It doesn't change the overall message.surrey_commuter said:
your 85% includes the UKStevo_666 said:
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 -
so if we stop looking at the 85% as a homogenous lump and discard those that are us, the too hard to do, ones with EU deals, too small, too poor and the outlaw countries you are left with a surprisingly manageable list;Stevo_666 said:
If you want to use your own slightly adjusted percentage, no problem. It doesn't change the overall message.surrey_commuter said:
your 85% includes the UKStevo_666 said:
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
Indonesia 1.25%
Saudi Arabia 0.85%
Thailand 0.56%
UAE 0.48%
Nigeria 0.46%
the others are all smaller than Ireland but if anybody wants to look here is the list
https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/0 -
Attempting to drag this thread back from the nonsense...
...albeit to the ridiculousWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Ha.TheBigBean said:
Seems sensible with all the levelling up.morstar said:I’m closing my coffee shop in London because most of the UK population lives outside London.
I can do more business elsewhere.
I guess to have a prospect of doing some sort of a group deal with 10 or 15 countries that together would add up to something meaningful we would need to, err, join one of the other trade blocs. While of course at all times not giving away the tiniest shred of sovereignty 😏surrey_commuter said:
so if we stop looking at the 85% as a homogenous lump and discard those that are us, the too hard to do, ones with EU deals, too small, too poor and the outlaw countries you are left with a surprisingly manageable list;Stevo_666 said:
If you want to use your own slightly adjusted percentage, no problem. It doesn't change the overall message.surrey_commuter said:
your 85% includes the UKStevo_666 said:
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
Indonesia 1.25%
Saudi Arabia 0.85%
Thailand 0.56%
UAE 0.48%
Nigeria 0.46%
the others are all smaller than Ireland but if anybody wants to look here is the list
https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!1
-
Edwin Poots is great craic. This should ensure him a place in cabinet if he decides to emigrate to the mainland and join the Tories.
Laughable0 -
You are making some very sweeping and Cake Stop 'cannot do 'type assumptions about some of the possible deals. Especially in the longer term.surrey_commuter said:
so if we stop looking at the 85% as a homogenous lump and discard those that are us, the too hard to do, ones with EU deals, too small, too poor and the outlaw countries you are left with a surprisingly manageable list;Stevo_666 said:
If you want to use your own slightly adjusted percentage, no problem. It doesn't change the overall message.surrey_commuter said:
your 85% includes the UKStevo_666 said:
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
Indonesia 1.25%
Saudi Arabia 0.85%
Thailand 0.56%
UAE 0.48%
Nigeria 0.46%
the others are all smaller than Ireland but if anybody wants to look here is the list
https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Great, if you operate a business providing remotely deliverable services to the EU. If you operate a business that provides "things" or in-person services, then you're b*ggered or at least subject to new restrictions/delays that might just render your previous business unviable, and there isn't a direct substitute via hopping on the equivalent of Eurotunnel to provide those services or things to the Aussies or the Japanese, providing of course that you used the transition period to learn to speak Japanese.Stevo_666 said:
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.
The "remainist" argument has always been that additional freedoms to trade with the rest of the world are never going to offset the losses incurred by making trading with our closest neighbours harder. All rational / independent analysis of the Aussie trade deal concludes that there is virtually no upside for the UK relative to arrangements whilst in the EU, with potentially non-trivial downsides for the UK agricultural sector. IIRC, the GDP boost to the UK from the Aussie deal is <0.1% of GDP.
Ironically, the best bet in the short term is to rejig the capital requirements imposed on insurance companies and pension funds by "Solvency II". They are widely held to be unduly onerous, and prevent investment in a whole range of socially useful infrastructure projects. One of our clients is just about the most cautious institutional investor one can imagine and they would happily invest in more such projects but for the capital requirements of "Solvency II".
The irony is that Solvency II never made it onto the red bus, despite its potential to very quickly free up funds for "green" energy investments etc.
0 -
Reports that the DUP First Minister is to resign today, thereby collapsing the NI Executive in 7 days.
Clearly they don't know Brexit is done“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
As I've said more than once above, the EU deal is already done so whether the global boost from trade deals with the Rest of the World is not really relevant in terms a decision as we are not taking a decision on whether to stay anymore. We need to focus on the things we can change - i.e. trade with RoW.wallace_and_gromit said:
The "remainist" argument has always been that additional freedoms to trade with the rest of the world are never going to offset the losses incurred by making trading with our closest neighbours harder. All rational / independent analysis of the Aussie trade deal concludes that there is virtually no upside for the UK relative to arrangements whilst in the EU, with potentially non-trivial downsides for the UK agricultural sector. IIRC, the GDP boost to the UK from the Aussie deal isStevo_666 said:
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 -
Surprised this bit of good news hasn't had a mention:
https://gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-pledges-brexit-freedoms-bill-to-cut-eu-red-tape
https://export.org.uk/news/594061/UK-announces-plans-for-Brexit-Freedoms-Bill-to-scrap-EU-laws-and-cut-1bn-in-red-tape-.htm"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
How is not cutting red tape good news?Stevo_666 said:0 -
It was discussed a few pages back. I think I pointed out that Brexit has caused export businesses more red tape then anything I can think of in at least the last 25 years so not sure whether this is one for the Brexit win box.Stevo_666 said:0 -
It feels very much like losing a tenner and finding a pound.
I hope I am wrong.0 -
Stevo_666 said:
As I've said more than once above, the EU deal is already done so whether the global boost from trade deals with the Rest of the World is not really relevant in terms a decision as we are not taking a decision on whether to stay anymore. We need to focus on the things we can change - i.e. trade with RoW.wallace_and_gromit said:
The "remainist" argument has always been that additional freedoms to trade with the rest of the world are never going to offset the losses incurred by making trading with our closest neighbours harder. All rational / independent analysis of the Aussie trade deal concludes that there is virtually no upside for the UK relative to arrangements whilst in the EU, with potentially non-trivial downsides for the UK agricultural sector. IIRC, the GDP boost to the UK from the Aussie deal isStevo_666 said:
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.
It is true that we are where we are. But proper rational analysis would included considering alignment with the eu to facilitate trade. This might be the best option. It’s only current Tory ideology that presents alignment with the eu as being bad “just because”.Stevo_666 said:
As I've said more than once above, the EU deal is already done so whether the global boost from trade deals with the Rest of the World is not really relevant in terms a decision as we are not taking a decision on whether to stay anymore. We need to focus on the things we can change - i.e. trade with RoW.wallace_and_gromit said:
The "remainist" argument has always been that additional freedoms to trade with the rest of the world are never going to offset the losses incurred by making trading with our closest neighbours harder. All rational / independent analysis of the Aussie trade deal concludes that there is virtually no upside for the UK relative to arrangements whilst in the EU, with potentially non-trivial downsides for the UK agricultural sector. IIRC, the GDP boost to the UK from the Aussie deal isStevo_666 said:
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.
Once the lunatics have gone back to their asylum, common sense may prevail, with all options back on the table.
1 -
So reduction of red tape is a bad thing in your view?skyblueamateur said:
It was discussed a few pages back. I think I pointed out that Brexit has caused export businesses more red tape then anything I can think of in at least the last 25 years so not sure whether this is one for the Brexit win box.Stevo_666 said:"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That's not a nice way to refer to the electorate. And that's why it's a pipe dream.wallace_and_gromit said:Stevo_666 said:
As I've said more than once above, the EU deal is already done so whether the global boost from trade deals with the Rest of the World is not really relevant in terms a decision as we are not taking a decision on whether to stay anymore. We need to focus on the things we can change - i.e. trade with RoW.wallace_and_gromit said:
The "remainist" argument has always been that additional freedoms to trade with the rest of the world are never going to offset the losses incurred by making trading with our closest neighbours harder. All rational / independent analysis of the Aussie trade deal concludes that there is virtually no upside for the UK relative to arrangements whilst in the EU, with potentially non-trivial downsides for the UK agricultural sector. IIRC, the GDP boost to the UK from the Aussie deal isStevo_666 said:
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.
It is true that we are where we are. But proper rational analysis would included considering alignment with the eu to facilitate trade. This might be the best option. It’s only current Tory ideology that presents alignment with the eu as being bad “just because”.Stevo_666 said:
As I've said more than once above, the EU deal is already done so whether the global boost from trade deals with the Rest of the World is not really relevant in terms a decision as we are not taking a decision on whether to stay anymore. We need to focus on the things we can change - i.e. trade with RoW.wallace_and_gromit said:
The "remainist" argument has always been that additional freedoms to trade with the rest of the world are never going to offset the losses incurred by making trading with our closest neighbours harder. All rational / independent analysis of the Aussie trade deal concludes that there is virtually no upside for the UK relative to arrangements whilst in the EU, with potentially non-trivial downsides for the UK agricultural sector. IIRC, the GDP boost to the UK from the Aussie deal isStevo_666 said:
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.
Once the lunatics have gone back to their asylum, common sense may prevail, with all options back on the table."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If you have no red tape, those with the lowest standards of behaviour define how far you must sink in order to be competitive.Stevo_666 said:
So reduction of red tape is a bad thing in your view?skyblueamateur said:
It was discussed a few pages back. I think I pointed out that Brexit has caused export businesses more red tape then anything I can think of in at least the last 25 years so not sure whether this is one for the Brexit win box.Stevo_666 said:
Absolutely no problem with well written legislation thank you very much.
Kids up chimneys and all manner of exploitative behaviour is the logical outcome of being anti red tape for being antis sake.
Name a crap rule that’s going and I’ll celebrate its passing. Just being anti red tape as a principle is populist nonsense.0 -
I see you're in the knee jerk 'more regulation = better' camp, which is no surprise. I have to deal with ever increasing amounts of this cr@p as part of my job and in my view the value add is patchy and limited. It's more effective at putting up prices and making politicians and bureaucrats feel important.morstar said:
If you have no red tape, those with the lowest standards of behaviour define how far you must sink in order to be competitive.Stevo_666 said:
So reduction of red tape is a bad thing in your view?skyblueamateur said:
It was discussed a few pages back. I think I pointed out that Brexit has caused export businesses more red tape then anything I can think of in at least the last 25 years so not sure whether this is one for the Brexit win box.Stevo_666 said:
Absolutely no problem with well written legislation thank you very much.
Kids up chimneys and all manner of exploitative behaviour is the logical outcome of being anti red tape for being antis sake.
Name a censored rule that’s going and I’ll celebrate its passing. Just being anti red tape as a principle is populist nonsense.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You need to explain your workings there for how I said more regulations = better.Stevo_666 said:
I see you're in the knee jerk 'more regulation = better' camp, which is no surprise. I have to deal with ever increasing amounts of this cr@p as part of my job and in my view the value add is patchy and limited. It's more effective at putting up prices and making politicians and bureaucrats feel important.morstar said:
If you have no red tape, those with the lowest standards of behaviour define how far you must sink in order to be competitive.Stevo_666 said:
So reduction of red tape is a bad thing in your view?skyblueamateur said:
It was discussed a few pages back. I think I pointed out that Brexit has caused export businesses more red tape then anything I can think of in at least the last 25 years so not sure whether this is one for the Brexit win box.Stevo_666 said:
Absolutely no problem with well written legislation thank you very much.
Kids up chimneys and all manner of exploitative behaviour is the logical outcome of being anti red tape for being antis sake.
Name a censored rule that’s going and I’ll celebrate its passing. Just being anti red tape as a principle is populist nonsense.0 -
It was my take from your post. You didn't need to say it explicitly.morstar said:
You need to explain your workings there for how I said more regulations = better.Stevo_666 said:
I see you're in the knee jerk 'more regulation = better' camp, which is no surprise. I have to deal with ever increasing amounts of this cr@p as part of my job and in my view the value add is patchy and limited. It's more effective at putting up prices and making politicians and bureaucrats feel important.morstar said:
If you have no red tape, those with the lowest standards of behaviour define how far you must sink in order to be competitive.Stevo_666 said:
So reduction of red tape is a bad thing in your view?skyblueamateur said:
It was discussed a few pages back. I think I pointed out that Brexit has caused export businesses more red tape then anything I can think of in at least the last 25 years so not sure whether this is one for the Brexit win box.Stevo_666 said:
Absolutely no problem with well written legislation thank you very much.
Kids up chimneys and all manner of exploitative behaviour is the logical outcome of being anti red tape for being antis sake.
Name a censored rule that’s going and I’ll celebrate its passing. Just being anti red tape as a principle is populist nonsense."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
Would still be interesting the hear which inserted (by you) dots you connected to get there.Stevo_666 said:
It was my take from your post. You didn't need to say it explicitly.morstar said:
You need to explain your workings there for how I said more regulations = better.Stevo_666 said:
I see you're in the knee jerk 'more regulation = better' camp, which is no surprise. I have to deal with ever increasing amounts of this cr@p as part of my job and in my view the value add is patchy and limited. It's more effective at putting up prices and making politicians and bureaucrats feel important.morstar said:
If you have no red tape, those with the lowest standards of behaviour define how far you must sink in order to be competitive.Stevo_666 said:
So reduction of red tape is a bad thing in your view?skyblueamateur said:
It was discussed a few pages back. I think I pointed out that Brexit has caused export businesses more red tape then anything I can think of in at least the last 25 years so not sure whether this is one for the Brexit win box.Stevo_666 said:
Absolutely no problem with well written legislation thank you very much.
Kids up chimneys and all manner of exploitative behaviour is the logical outcome of being anti red tape for being antis sake.
Name a censored rule that’s going and I’ll celebrate its passing. Just being anti red tape as a principle is populist nonsense.
0 -
This is possibly the best post on the current situation.wallace_and_gromit said:Stevo_666 said:
As I've said more than once above, the EU deal is already done so whether the global boost from trade deals with the Rest of the World is not really relevant in terms a decision as we are not taking a decision on whether to stay anymore. We need to focus on the things we can change - i.e. trade with RoW.wallace_and_gromit said:
The "remainist" argument has always been that additional freedoms to trade with the rest of the world are never going to offset the losses incurred by making trading with our closest neighbours harder. All rational / independent analysis of the Aussie trade deal concludes that there is virtually no upside for the UK relative to arrangements whilst in the EU, with potentially non-trivial downsides for the UK agricultural sector. IIRC, the GDP boost to the UK from the Aussie deal isStevo_666 said:
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.
It is true that we are where we are. But proper rational analysis would included considering alignment with the eu to facilitate trade. This might be the best option. It’s only current Tory ideology that presents alignment with the eu as being bad “just because”.Stevo_666 said:
As I've said more than once above, the EU deal is already done so whether the global boost from trade deals with the Rest of the World is not really relevant in terms a decision as we are not taking a decision on whether to stay anymore. We need to focus on the things we can change - i.e. trade with RoW.wallace_and_gromit said:
The "remainist" argument has always been that additional freedoms to trade with the rest of the world are never going to offset the losses incurred by making trading with our closest neighbours harder. All rational / independent analysis of the Aussie trade deal concludes that there is virtually no upside for the UK relative to arrangements whilst in the EU, with potentially non-trivial downsides for the UK agricultural sector. IIRC, the GDP boost to the UK from the Aussie deal isStevo_666 said:
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.
Once the lunatics have gone back to their asylum, common sense may prevail, with all options back on the table.
Once we can stop making the EU the enemy and bogeyman we might get to a point where we can work together with the EU for mutually beneficial reasons.
Evidently not and don’t be so obtuse. If we take pre-Brexit as a starting point my business has been massively bogged down in extra red tape and beaurocracy since the ‘deal’. It’s been the single biggest issue we have had in the last 25 years. I will be interested in the proposals for the reductions and will welcome them but am under no illusions that it will cancel out Brexit related red tape.Stevo_666 said:
So reduction of red tape is a bad thing in your view?skyblueamateur said:
It was discussed a few pages back. I think I pointed out that Brexit has caused export businesses more red tape then anything I can think of in at least the last 25 years so not sure whether this is one for the Brexit win box.Stevo_666 said:
This is even before I get on to the absolute nonsense of the costs of having to get CE certification and UKCA certification which is basically the same thing.
I’ve always respected your input into these debates but it does feel of late you are purely on the windup.1 -
So you're not in favour of ever more regulation?morstar said:
Would still be interesting the hear which inserted (by you) dots you connected to get there.Stevo_666 said:
It was my take from your post. You didn't need to say it explicitly.morstar said:
You need to explain your workings there for how I said more regulations = better.Stevo_666 said:
I see you're in the knee jerk 'more regulation = better' camp, which is no surprise. I have to deal with ever increasing amounts of this cr@p as part of my job and in my view the value add is patchy and limited. It's more effective at putting up prices and making politicians and bureaucrats feel important.morstar said:
If you have no red tape, those with the lowest standards of behaviour define how far you must sink in order to be competitive.Stevo_666 said:
So reduction of red tape is a bad thing in your view?skyblueamateur said:
It was discussed a few pages back. I think I pointed out that Brexit has caused export businesses more red tape then anything I can think of in at least the last 25 years so not sure whether this is one for the Brexit win box.Stevo_666 said:
Absolutely no problem with well written legislation thank you very much.
Kids up chimneys and all manner of exploitative behaviour is the logical outcome of being anti red tape for being antis sake.
Name a censored rule that’s going and I’ll celebrate its passing. Just being anti red tape as a principle is populist nonsense."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
