BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Stevo_666

skyblueamateur said:

@Stevo_666 I’ve always appreciated your input into this discussion. Although contrary at times it’s good to get a different viewpoint.

I appreciate the fact that you believe we now have a choice. Do you believe we are making the correct choices regarding trade?

In terms of what we are doing now - overall the move to increase our global trade deals is the right one IMO. Some of these will take time but if we believe that maximising free trade is good, then best get it done with as much the 85%+ of the world economy outside of the EU as is practical to do so and in our best interests.

The EU deal is done and so despite what some may say on here, no longer a point for debate in terms of your question. Sure, there was always going to be a negative impact on trade with the EU, but there was a trade off with other things such as our freedom to act - and for better or worse, we took the choice that we did. Longer term, the question around whether we escaped being slowly sucked into an EU superstate will continue - I guess we can watch and see what happens with the EU27.

morstar

The 85% figure includes the UK. Don't think we need a trade deal there.

US = 24%
China = 15%
Eu = 15%
UK = 3%

So that's 57% accounted for.
We have an EU deal that is worse than before.
Neither US or China are in any rush to deal with us. When they are, it will be on terms favourable to them.

Now, if we assume that any nation with larger GDP than us is going to have more leverage than us in trade negotiations that leaves us open to agreeing worse trade terms with.

Japan = 6%
India = 3.25%

So realistically, there is about 35% of the global economy where size could benefit UK interests in negotiations. Although we are now negotiating as a 3% economy rather than part of a 15% trading block. So unless there is a specific trading benefit, we are unlikely to gain improvements.

Being generous and assuming specificity is beneficial in 50% of negotiations, we stand to improve our position with c. 17% of the global economy. Chasing the long tail by any measure.

https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/

pblakeney

morstar said:

Being generous and assuming specificity is beneficial in 50% of negotiations, we stand to improve our position with c. 17% of the global economy. Chasing the long tail by any measure.

You are not accounting for British exceptionalism.

morstar

pblakeney said:

morstar said:

Being generous and assuming specificity is beneficial in 50% of negotiations, we stand to improve our position with c. 17% of the global economy. Chasing the long tail by any measure.

You are not accounting for British exceptionalism.

Good point. 170% will be better. Because....

tailwindhome

Ian Duncan Smith, in the Mail, arguing that the terms of the Protocol don't allow the UK to amend VAT rates on fuel.

Man needs to stop whingeing and accept Brexit is done

surrey_commuter

morstar said:

The 85% figure includes the UK. Don't think we need a trade deal there.

US = 24%
China = 15%
Eu = 15%
UK = 3%

So that's 57% accounted for.
We have an EU deal that is worse than before.
Neither US or China are in any rush to deal with us. When they are, it will be on terms favourable to them.

Now, if we assume that any nation with larger GDP than us is going to have more leverage than us in trade negotiations that leaves us open to agreeing worse trade terms with.

Japan = 6%
India = 3.25%

So realistically, there is about 35% of the global economy where size could benefit UK interests in negotiations. Although we are now negotiating as a 3% economy rather than part of a 15% trading block. So unless there is a specific trading benefit, we are unlikely to gain improvements.

Being generous and assuming specificity is beneficial in 50% of negotiations, we stand to improve our position with c. 17% of the global economy. Chasing the long tail by any measure.

https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/

Thank you for saving me a job

morstar

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

The 85% figure includes the UK. Don't think we need a trade deal there.

US = 24%
China = 15%
Eu = 15%
UK = 3%

So that's 57% accounted for.
We have an EU deal that is worse than before.
Neither US or China are in any rush to deal with us. When they are, it will be on terms favourable to them.

Now, if we assume that any nation with larger GDP than us is going to have more leverage than us in trade negotiations that leaves us open to agreeing worse trade terms with.

Japan = 6%
India = 3.25%

So realistically, there is about 35% of the global economy where size could benefit UK interests in negotiations. Although we are now negotiating as a 3% economy rather than part of a 15% trading block. So unless there is a specific trading benefit, we are unlikely to gain improvements.

Being generous and assuming specificity is beneficial in 50% of negotiations, we stand to improve our position with c. 17% of the global economy. Chasing the long tail by any measure.

https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/

Thank you for saving me a job

No problem. And worth mentioning that the eu and larger nations are 31 countries of the 190 listed.

So that's 159 negotiations chasing 35% of the global market. I know we've rolled many over but that's not really taking advantage of our freedoms. So they'll need re-negotiating.

Stevo_666

morstar said:

The 85% figure includes the UK. Don't think we need a trade deal there.

US = 24%
China = 15%
Eu = 15%
UK = 3%

So that's 57% accounted for.
We have an EU deal that is worse than before.
Neither US or China are in any rush to deal with us. When they are, it will be on terms favourable to them.

Now, if we assume that any nation with larger GDP than us is going to have more leverage than us in trade negotiations that leaves us open to agreeing worse trade terms with.

Japan = 6%
India = 3.25%

So realistically, there is about 35% of the global economy where size could benefit UK interests in negotiations. Although we are now negotiating as a 3% economy rather than part of a 15% trading block. So unless there is a specific trading benefit, we are unlikely to gain improvements.

Being generous and assuming specificity is beneficial in 50% of negotiations, we stand to improve our position with c. 17% of the global economy. Chasing the long tail by any measure.

https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/

So what's your alternative strategy then? Be realistic.

As I said above, the EU deal is done, so not in scope of what we should do from now on.

Also can you explain why we would sign up to a terrible trade deal with a larger country that leaves us worse off than no deal at all - which is what you seem to be implying will happen?

morstar

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

The 85% figure includes the UK. Don't think we need a trade deal there.

US = 24%
China = 15%
Eu = 15%
UK = 3%

So that's 57% accounted for.
We have an EU deal that is worse than before.
Neither US or China are in any rush to deal with us. When they are, it will be on terms favourable to them.

Now, if we assume that any nation with larger GDP than us is going to have more leverage than us in trade negotiations that leaves us open to agreeing worse trade terms with.

Japan = 6%
India = 3.25%

So realistically, there is about 35% of the global economy where size could benefit UK interests in negotiations. Although we are now negotiating as a 3% economy rather than part of a 15% trading block. So unless there is a specific trading benefit, we are unlikely to gain improvements.

Being generous and assuming specificity is beneficial in 50% of negotiations, we stand to improve our position with c. 17% of the global economy. Chasing the long tail by any measure.

https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/

So what's your alternative strategy then? Be realistic.

As I said above, the EU deal is done, so not in scope of what we should do from now on.

Also can you explain why we would sign up to a terrible trade deal with a larger country that leaves us worse off than no deal at all - which is what you seem to be implying will happen?

I agree completely with the idea that we have to deal with it and make the best of it. I never suggested we have any other option.

However, using inaccurate and blunt statistics suggesting we are awash with opportunities is misleading. Given that it is done, it is no different people moaning about it than it is people supporting it. We're all wasting our breath.

The point in the statistics is this, if you espouse the idea we have great trading opportunities available with 82% of the global economy, you are including China and the US in that. It is up to those in power to achieve those benefits. If the best we've got is not signing up to a bad deal, then those are no longer an opportunity and the 82% is not available. Therefore you can't claim this as an opportunity. I believe this is the case and the evidence would support that assertion.

Note that it's closer to 81% but I've been generous with rounding.

morstar

PS, I think you'd have slaughtered any Leftie / Centre leftie MP who included the UK 3% GDP as a global trading opportunity.

Stevo_666

morstar said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

The 85% figure includes the UK. Don't think we need a trade deal there.

US = 24%
China = 15%
Eu = 15%
UK = 3%

So that's 57% accounted for.
We have an EU deal that is worse than before.
Neither US or China are in any rush to deal with us. When they are, it will be on terms favourable to them.

Now, if we assume that any nation with larger GDP than us is going to have more leverage than us in trade negotiations that leaves us open to agreeing worse trade terms with.

Japan = 6%
India = 3.25%

So realistically, there is about 35% of the global economy where size could benefit UK interests in negotiations. Although we are now negotiating as a 3% economy rather than part of a 15% trading block. So unless there is a specific trading benefit, we are unlikely to gain improvements.

Being generous and assuming specificity is beneficial in 50% of negotiations, we stand to improve our position with c. 17% of the global economy. Chasing the long tail by any measure.

https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/

So what's your alternative strategy then? Be realistic.

As I said above, the EU deal is done, so not in scope of what we should do from now on.

Also can you explain why we would sign up to a terrible trade deal with a larger country that leaves us worse off than no deal at all - which is what you seem to be implying will happen?

I agree completely with the idea that we have to deal with it and make the best of it. I never suggested we have any other option.

However, using inaccurate and blunt statistics suggesting we are awash with opportunities is misleading. Given that it is done, it is no different people moaning about it than it is people supporting it. We're all wasting our breath.

The point in the statistics is this, if you espouse the idea we have great trading opportunities available with 82% of the global economy, you are including China and the US in that. It is up to those in power to achieve those benefits. If the best we've got is not signing up to a bad deal, then those are no longer an opportunity and the 82% is not available. Therefore you can't claim this as an opportunity. I believe this is the case and the evidence would support that assertion.

Note that it's closer to 81% but I've been generous with rounding.

Not too interested in arguing over a few percent one way or the other, the principle is the same.

Explain how trade could make things worse than no trade deal. In any event it is about mutual benefits and clearly you dont sign up until you feel that you have got enough, so clearly nobody will sign a trade deal that inhibits trade compared to the no trade deal situation.

You can postulate about probabilities but a US deal is not that unlikely given a bit of time. There are also moves to join the Trans Pacific Partnership which would effectively be a trade deal with a fairly significant chunk of the global economy.

rick_chasey

I’d take this argument more seriously if you were more critical of the existing Uk EU trade agreement, which does not cover vast swathes of the UK Economy

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

The 85% figure includes the UK. Don't think we need a trade deal there.

US = 24%
China = 15%
Eu = 15%
UK = 3%

So that's 57% accounted for.
We have an EU deal that is worse than before.
Neither US or China are in any rush to deal with us. When they are, it will be on terms favourable to them.

Now, if we assume that any nation with larger GDP than us is going to have more leverage than us in trade negotiations that leaves us open to agreeing worse trade terms with.

Japan = 6%
India = 3.25%

So realistically, there is about 35% of the global economy where size could benefit UK interests in negotiations. Although we are now negotiating as a 3% economy rather than part of a 15% trading block. So unless there is a specific trading benefit, we are unlikely to gain improvements.

Being generous and assuming specificity is beneficial in 50% of negotiations, we stand to improve our position with c. 17% of the global economy. Chasing the long tail by any measure.

https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/

So what's your alternative strategy then? Be realistic.

As I said above, the EU deal is done, so not in scope of what we should do from now on.

Also can you explain why we would sign up to a terrible trade deal with a larger country that leaves us worse off than no deal at all - which is what you seem to be implying will happen?

I agree completely with the idea that we have to deal with it and make the best of it. I never suggested we have any other option.

However, using inaccurate and blunt statistics suggesting we are awash with opportunities is misleading. Given that it is done, it is no different people moaning about it than it is people supporting it. We're all wasting our breath.

The point in the statistics is this, if you espouse the idea we have great trading opportunities available with 82% of the global economy, you are including China and the US in that. It is up to those in power to achieve those benefits. If the best we've got is not signing up to a bad deal, then those are no longer an opportunity and the 82% is not available. Therefore you can't claim this as an opportunity. I believe this is the case and the evidence would support that assertion.

Note that it's closer to 81% but I've been generous with rounding.

Not too interested in arguing over a few percent one way or the other, the principle is the same.

Explain how trade could make things worse than no trade deal. In any event it is about mutual benefits and clearly you dont sign up until you feel that you have got enough, so clearly nobody will sign a trade deal that inhibits trade compared to the no trade deal situation.

You can postulate about probabilities but a US deal is not that unlikely given a bit of time. There are also moves to join the Trans Pacific Partnership which would effectively be a trade deal with a fairly significant chunk of the global economy.

How long is a bit of time?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

I’d take this argument more seriously if you were more critical of the existing Uk EU trade agreement, which does not cover vast swathes of the UK Economy

Read what I said above about that. We're talking about what we can do in the future, not what's already done in the past.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

Stevo_666 said:

morstar said:

The 85% figure includes the UK. Don't think we need a trade deal there.

US = 24%
China = 15%
Eu = 15%
UK = 3%

So that's 57% accounted for.
We have an EU deal that is worse than before.
Neither US or China are in any rush to deal with us. When they are, it will be on terms favourable to them.

Now, if we assume that any nation with larger GDP than us is going to have more leverage than us in trade negotiations that leaves us open to agreeing worse trade terms with.

Japan = 6%
India = 3.25%

So realistically, there is about 35% of the global economy where size could benefit UK interests in negotiations. Although we are now negotiating as a 3% economy rather than part of a 15% trading block. So unless there is a specific trading benefit, we are unlikely to gain improvements.

Being generous and assuming specificity is beneficial in 50% of negotiations, we stand to improve our position with c. 17% of the global economy. Chasing the long tail by any measure.

https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/

So what's your alternative strategy then? Be realistic.

As I said above, the EU deal is done, so not in scope of what we should do from now on.

Also can you explain why we would sign up to a terrible trade deal with a larger country that leaves us worse off than no deal at all - which is what you seem to be implying will happen?

I agree completely with the idea that we have to deal with it and make the best of it. I never suggested we have any other option.

However, using inaccurate and blunt statistics suggesting we are awash with opportunities is misleading. Given that it is done, it is no different people moaning about it than it is people supporting it. We're all wasting our breath.

The point in the statistics is this, if you espouse the idea we have great trading opportunities available with 82% of the global economy, you are including China and the US in that. It is up to those in power to achieve those benefits. If the best we've got is not signing up to a bad deal, then those are no longer an opportunity and the 82% is not available. Therefore you can't claim this as an opportunity. I believe this is the case and the evidence would support that assertion.

Note that it's closer to 81% but I've been generous with rounding.

Not too interested in arguing over a few percent one way or the other, the principle is the same.

Explain how trade could make things worse than no trade deal. In any event it is about mutual benefits and clearly you dont sign up until you feel that you have got enough, so clearly nobody will sign a trade deal that inhibits trade compared to the no trade deal situation.

You can postulate about probabilities but a US deal is not that unlikely given a bit of time. There are also moves to join the Trans Pacific Partnership which would effectively be a trade deal with a fairly significant chunk of the global economy.

How long is a bit of time?

You know we can't predict the future so why ask?

rjsterry

If you are classing a US deal as possible in the medium term, I don't see why you are ruling out a revision of the TCA in a similar timescale.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

If you are classing a US deal as possible in the medium term, I don't see why you are ruling out a revision of the TCA in a similar timescale.

Main difference is down to what we want to do. A US trade agreement wouldn't come with the same strings attached.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

If you are classing a US deal as possible in the medium term, I don't see why you are ruling out a revision of the TCA in a similar timescale.

Main difference is down to what we want to do. A US trade agreement wouldn't come with the same strings attached.

I think that's looking through rose tinted glasses one way and being overly negative the other. A month ago we were threatening to impose tariffs on the US in retaliation for Trump's steel tariffs that they haven't got round to removing. On the other hand, the SPS part of the TCA was pretty unambitious with room for improvement and would make a big difference to food producers in the UK.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

I’d take this argument more seriously if you were more critical of the existing Uk EU trade agreement, which does not cover vast swathes of the UK Economy

Read what I said above about that. We're talking about what we can do in the future, not what's already done in the past.

Yeah, like renegotiating a more inclusive deal?

I mean, the government is literally trying to renegotiate parts of it already, right?

Or are you also of the view they shouldn't do that?

Trade deals are not cast in stone.

surrey_commuter

All this talk of medium and long term trade deals reminds me of JRM's 50 year timescale.

We are 5 years in and have (as planned) gone significantly backwards in terms of trade. To land enough significant trade deals and for the economy to then pivot to access these benefits and for that to feed through into growth will be measured not in decades but in fractions of a century

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

I’d take this argument more seriously if you were more critical of the existing Uk EU trade agreement, which does not cover vast swathes of the UK Economy

Read what I said above about that. We're talking about what we can do in the future, not what's already done in the past.

Yeah, like renegotiating a more inclusive deal?

I mean, the government is literally trying to renegotiate parts of it already, right?

Or are you also of the view they shouldn't do that?

Trade deals are not cast in stone.

As I said above to Morstar, be realistic.

How many scenarios do you see where renegotiating the EU deal in a way that pleases you would not result in some concession such as free movement, accepting the supremacy of EU law or giving the EU the ability to regulate and interfere in UK affairs? Which, let's face it, is not going to fly in the UK. Better to focus on trade deals that do not have such onerous consequences.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

If you are classing a US deal as possible in the medium term, I don't see why you are ruling out a revision of the TCA in a similar timescale.

Main difference is down to what we want to do. A US trade agreement wouldn't come with the same strings attached.

I think that's looking through rose tinted glasses one way and being overly negative the other. A month ago we were threatening to impose tariffs on the US in retaliation for Trump's steel tariffs that they haven't got round to removing. On the other hand, the SPS part of the TCA was pretty unambitious with room for improvement and would make a big difference to food producers in the UK.

Nope just stating stating a reasonable possibility. Beats looking at it through s**t tinted spectacles, which seems to be almost compulsory on here.

briantrumpet

I guess that if you have a leg amputated, it's a plus that you've got fewer toenails to cut.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

I guess that if you have a leg amputated, it's a plus that you've got fewer toenails to cut.

Not that old cliche again.

Stevo_666

Anyhow, let's get pruning the EU red tape...
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/02/21/city-chiefs-pledge-80bn-brexit-big-bang-red-tape-cut2/

"City chiefs to unleash £80bn Brexit 'Big Bang' as ministers scrap EU red tape
Relaxing of EU rules will spur investment in UK economy, say insurers


Tens of billions of pounds in investment is to be unleashed by City insurers after ministers pledged to axe controversial EU-era red tape in a major post-Brexit shakeup.

Two years after the UK officially left the EU, John Glen, the City minister, said the Government will ditch swathes of the controversial Solvency 2 rulebook governing insurers.

It came as Sir Nigel Wilson, chief executive of Legal & General, and Andy Briggs, chief executive of Phoenix Group, said they could collectively plough around £80bn into the UK economy in the wake of rules being relaxed in an investment “Big Bang”.

Unveiling the shake-up at the Association of British Insurers’ annual dinner, Mr Glen said: “EU regulation doesn’t work for us anymore and the Government is determined to fix that by tailoring the prudential regulation of insurers to our unique circumstances.

“We have a genuine opportunity to maintain and grow an innovative and vibrant insurance sector while protecting policyholders and making it easier for insurance firms to use long-term capital to unlock growth.”

The rules were adopted by ministers once the UK left the bloc, but Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, had placed the rulebook under review to determine whether it could be relaxed to boost British insurers and increase investment in areas such as infrastructure.

A consultation will be launched in April, with the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority to look into the finer details later in the year.

The changes are expected to reduce the reporting and administration burden on businesses, increase their flexibility to invest in long-term assets including infrastructure, and free up funds by reducing the risk margin insurers face.

At the same time the “matching adjustment” mechanism covering long-term investments, which the industry says pushes it away from projects such as wind farms and into low-yielding sovereign and corporate bonds, will also be tweaked with “more sensitive treatment of credit risk”.

The Government’s move comes amid growing concern in the City and in Whitehall that the UK has been moving too slowly as Brussels has already published proposed reforms to the Solvency 2 regime.

Sir Nigel said: “The EU is reforming the Solvency 2 rules itself, so we need to make the changes or fall behind.

“The UK has the opportunity to bring regulations up to date, making it possible to invest in asset classes that didn’t exist when they were originally written.”

He added that L&G could invest more than £30bn in “levelling up” projects such as renewable energy and social and affordable housing in the coming years if the rulebook is revised.

Insurance has been touted for years as an industry that could benefit from relaxing the EU rules introduced in the wake of the 2008 financial crash.

Mr Briggs said: “Sensible Solvency 2 reforms represent a unique and very significant opportunity to ensure more private-sector capital can be directed by insurers and asset managers into long-term infrastructure assets in the UK."

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

I guess that if you have a leg amputated, it's a plus that you've got fewer toenails to cut.

Not that old cliche again.

Yup. I admire your determination to look at the positives while seeming to be determined to cut us off increasingly from a massive market on our doorstep, as that's where diverging more and more from EU standards will leave us.

OTOH, if your ambition is to reduce all our regulations so we become more like the US, then your optimism makes sense, given where Brexit has got us so far.

rick_chasey

Binning off solvency II is not the panacea Andy Briggs thinks it is (who I’ve met I should add)

Meanwhile @TheBigBean https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/19/pledge-to-ban-fur-and-foie-gras-imports-could-be-dropped-after-cabinet-opposition

briantrumpet

Did the banking crisis of 2008 happen because of too much regulation?

rick_chasey

Think of what Phoenix Group do and why he wants rid of parts of solvency II

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

Did the banking crisis of 2008 happen because of too much regulation?

Good loaded question. You tell us why it happened.