BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
And here's a more balanced thread, albeit by someone who's not a Brexit fan.
0 -
Northern Ireland will be aligned with the EU. GB will be aligned with CPTPP.kingstongraham said:If it isn't possible to be aligned with the single market, the UK and the CPTPP, it's going to make it very difficult for Northern Ireland isn't it?
0 -
Cool, cool.TheBigBean said:
Northern Ireland will be aligned with the EU. GB will be aligned with CPTPP.kingstongraham said:If it isn't possible to be aligned with the single market, the UK and the CPTPP, it's going to make it very difficult for Northern Ireland isn't it?
0 -
Which is not acceptable to the DUP as it treats NI differently.TheBigBean said:
Northern Ireland will be aligned with the EU. GB will be aligned with CPTPP.kingstongraham said:If it isn't possible to be aligned with the single market, the UK and the CPTPP, it's going to make it very difficult for Northern Ireland isn't it?
Although not getting something you never had is a different problem to not getting rid of something you did have but now don’t want.
0 -
Yes, but that is unrelated to the UK joining CPTPP.morstar said:
Which is not acceptable to the DUP as it treats NI differently.TheBigBean said:
Northern Ireland will be aligned with the EU. GB will be aligned with CPTPP.kingstongraham said:If it isn't possible to be aligned with the single market, the UK and the CPTPP, it's going to make it very difficult for Northern Ireland isn't it?
Although not getting something you never had is a different problem to not getting rid of something you did have but now don’t want.0 -
How is it unrelated?TheBigBean said:
Yes, but that is unrelated to the UK joining CPTPP.morstar said:
Which is not acceptable to the DUP as it treats NI differently.TheBigBean said:
Northern Ireland will be aligned with the EU. GB will be aligned with CPTPP.kingstongraham said:If it isn't possible to be aligned with the single market, the UK and the CPTPP, it's going to make it very difficult for Northern Ireland isn't it?
Although not getting something you never had is a different problem to not getting rid of something you did have but now don’t want.
NI unionists will say it is a further case of NI not benefitting from being a full member of the UK.0 -
CPTPP is simply an example it is not the core issue.morstar said:
How is it unrelated?TheBigBean said:
Yes, but that is unrelated to the UK joining CPTPP.morstar said:
Which is not acceptable to the DUP as it treats NI differently.TheBigBean said:
Northern Ireland will be aligned with the EU. GB will be aligned with CPTPP.kingstongraham said:If it isn't possible to be aligned with the single market, the UK and the CPTPP, it's going to make it very difficult for Northern Ireland isn't it?
Although not getting something you never had is a different problem to not getting rid of something you did have but now don’t want.
NI unionists will say it is a further case of NI not benefitting from being a full member of the UK.0 -
There's a clear difference between the CPTPP and EU membership in terms of the number of strings, as has been pointed out above.rjsterry said:
All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.Stevo_666 said:
My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.wallace_and_gromit said:
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That was my point but I also agree with your point.wallace_and_gromit said:
I can’t speak for Stevo but I think my point was fairly clear that the Pacific thing is based round mutual recognition of local laws, as opposed to transfer of legal competency in key areas, as is the car with the eu.pangolin said:
I thought Stevo was agreeing with wallace_and_gromit that neither of them had studied it in any depth.rjsterry said:
All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.Stevo_666 said:
My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.wallace_and_gromit said:
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
I think (and I’m happy to be corrected) Stevo’s point is that the trade benefits of eu membership come bound up with a lot of other stuff unrelated to trade per se.
Anyway, just for avoidance of doubt, canning the eu in the hope of a “large” trade deal on the other side of the world strikes me as nuts which is one of many reasons why I voted to remain.
Although I don't think we canned the EU because we wanted to enter a different trade deal: we are where we are and it makes sense to use our newfound freedoms to make other trade deals.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Sure. Like most things,the more you commit the more you get out.Stevo_666 said:
There's a clear difference between the CPTPP and EU membership in terms of the number of strings, as has been pointed out above.rjsterry said:
All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.Stevo_666 said:
My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.wallace_and_gromit said:
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Not necessarily.rjsterry said:
Sure. Like most things,the more you commit the more you get out.Stevo_666 said:
There's a clear difference between the CPTPP and EU membership in terms of the number of strings, as has been pointed out above.rjsterry said:
All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.Stevo_666 said:
My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.wallace_and_gromit said:
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
Remember the old illustration of the difference between involvement and commitment? Imagine a plate of eggs and bacon: the chicken was involved; the pig was committed
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
You’ve lost me.TheBigBean said:
CPTPP is simply an example it is not the core issue.morstar said:
How is it unrelated?TheBigBean said:
Yes, but that is unrelated to the UK joining CPTPP.morstar said:
Which is not acceptable to the DUP as it treats NI differently.TheBigBean said:
Northern Ireland will be aligned with the EU. GB will be aligned with CPTPP.kingstongraham said:If it isn't possible to be aligned with the single market, the UK and the CPTPP, it's going to make it very difficult for Northern Ireland isn't it?
Although not getting something you never had is a different problem to not getting rid of something you did have but now don’t want.
NI unionists will say it is a further case of NI not benefitting from being a full member of the UK.0 -
I think the non-emotional Brexiteer argument was that FoM, contributions, being subject to the ECJ, QMV and the inability to vote out buffoons like JCJ were bigger downsides in aggregate than the cumulative trade benefits. Or put more abstractly, there is not a linear relationship between what you give and what you get back.rjsterry said:
Sure. Like most things, the more you commit the more you get out.Stevo_666 said:
There's a clear difference between the CPTPP and EU membership in terms of the number of strings, as has been pointed out above.rjsterry said:
All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.Stevo_666 said:
My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.wallace_and_gromit said:
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
Not my argument, but I think if you plugged a Brexiteer into the mains and forced them to be logical, the above is reasonably close to what you might get after you'd gently simmered their nether regions at a modest voltage.
0 -
That’s a reasonable argument but I think you’ve missed a key part.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think the non-emotional Brexiteer argument was that FoM, contributions, being subject to the ECJ, QMV and the inability to vote out buffoons like JCJ were bigger downsides in aggregate than the cumulative trade benefits. Or put more abstractly, there is not a linear relationship between what you give and what you get back.rjsterry said:
Sure. Like most things, the more you commit the more you get out.Stevo_666 said:
There's a clear difference between the CPTPP and EU membership in terms of the number of strings, as has been pointed out above.rjsterry said:
All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.Stevo_666 said:
My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.wallace_and_gromit said:
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
Not my argument, but I think if you plugged a Brexiteer into the mains and forced them to be logical, the above is reasonably close to what you might get after you'd gently simmered their nether regions at a modest voltage.
The Eu has typically been centre left. Were it centre right, all of those issues would have been far less important to the Conservatives.0 -
But ironically, it’s that consistent direction that has contributed to its success. Not because it’s centre left rather than centre right per se, but because it has always had a consistent direction.
Our lurching from left to right every 10-15 years does not promote growth. It’s 5 years of undoing the prior lot.0 -
So, there's nothing preventing us, just a question of whether or not we want to.Stevo_666 said:
Since you asked twice...probably, although by time that decision comes round again (if ever) it may well be a case of giving up a larger deal for a smaller one, given relative growth rates and potential new joiners of the CPTPP - South Korea is on the cards and the USA is a longer term prospect.tailwindhome said:
Could we not just leave the CPTPP if we decided to rejoin the EU?Stevo_666 said:
We voted to do that in 2016, mainly for reasons other than just trade. This deal gives access to a market of similar size, but which is much faster growing and does not have the same issues of interference in governance. Which is a valid consideration.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:Oh, and one other point which may be of passing interest:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/29/cptpp-uk-pacific-trade-deal-brexit-victory-analysis/
Quote:
"Accession to the partnership would be a huge event for Brexit Britain and would not have been possible inside the European Union. Accession would mean that the UK would not be able to rejoin the EU customs union.
Since the pact requires that the UK has control over its own regulatory system, dynamic alignment of UK regulations with the EU would also not be feasible, except in those areas where EU regulation passes CPTPP muster."
Possibly a subtle masterstroke by Rishi & Co?
So knowingly excluding an easy trading relationship with your nearest and most wealthy market is a masterstroke? OK.
Kinda spoils your hopes of us rejoining though. C'est la vie.
OK.
So not really masterstroke by Rishi in that regard.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Sammy is confusing his opinion with evidencebriantrumpet said:Nothing to do with Brexit then, obvs.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
EU RTW is doing my head in at the moment. Slows everything down so much. Nightmarewallace_and_gromit said:
I think the non-emotional Brexiteer argument was that FoM, contributions, being subject to the ECJ, QMV and the inability to vote out buffoons like JCJ were bigger downsides in aggregate than the cumulative trade benefits. Or put more abstractly, there is not a linear relationship between what you give and what you get back.rjsterry said:
Sure. Like most things, the more you commit the more you get out.Stevo_666 said:
There's a clear difference between the CPTPP and EU membership in terms of the number of strings, as has been pointed out above.rjsterry said:
All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.Stevo_666 said:
My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.wallace_and_gromit said:
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
Not my argument, but I think if you plugged a Brexiteer into the mains and forced them to be logical, the above is reasonably close to what you might get after you'd gently simmered their nether regions at a modest voltage.0 -
Well put W&G. A lot of the arguments to leave were that any economic downsides were outweighed by the autonomy and self governance points. Clearly others took a different view but there's no point crying over spilt milk now.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think the non-emotional Brexiteer argument was that FoM, contributions, being subject to the ECJ, QMV and the inability to vote out buffoons like JCJ were bigger downsides in aggregate than the cumulative trade benefits. Or put more abstractly, there is not a linear relationship between what you give and what you get back.rjsterry said:
Sure. Like most things, the more you commit the more you get out.Stevo_666 said:
There's a clear difference between the CPTPP and EU membership in terms of the number of strings, as has been pointed out above.rjsterry said:
All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.Stevo_666 said:
My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.wallace_and_gromit said:
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
Not my argument, but I think if you plugged a Brexiteer into the mains and forced them to be logical, the above is reasonably close to what you might get after you'd gently simmered their nether regions at a modest voltage."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The UK has neither autonomy nor self governance.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Can’t do much without money.
Hell this government can’t even pay the police enough to enforce the rules they already have.
All governments do is raise and spend money and make rules.
That’s it. If they raise less money they can’t do as much.
Who are these idiots who don’t understand that, geopolitically, money and wealth is virtually everything.0 -
Nobody made that argument. They talked about the benefits of autonomy but their economic projections was for somewhere between “no worse off” and “sunlit uplands”Stevo_666 said:
Well put W&G. A lot of the arguments to leave were that any economic downsides were outweighed by the autonomy and self governance points. Clearly others took a different view but there's no point crying over spilt milk now.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think the non-emotional Brexiteer argument was that FoM, contributions, being subject to the ECJ, QMV and the inability to vote out buffoons like JCJ were bigger downsides in aggregate than the cumulative trade benefits. Or put more abstractly, there is not a linear relationship between what you give and what you get back.rjsterry said:
Sure. Like most things, the more you commit the more you get out.Stevo_666 said:
There's a clear difference between the CPTPP and EU membership in terms of the number of strings, as has been pointed out above.rjsterry said:
All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.Stevo_666 said:
My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.wallace_and_gromit said:
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
Not my argument, but I think if you plugged a Brexiteer into the mains and forced them to be logical, the above is reasonably close to what you might get after you'd gently simmered their nether regions at a modest voltage.
They did not write on the side of a bus the bill to take back control will be £2bn a week.0 -
There were a few people (not anyone connected with the Leave campaign though) who made some quite rational, economics-based arguments in favour of leaving the EU which acknowledged short-term pain. They tended to be based round being as far away as possible from the Euro and the fallout when it "implodes", as though the UK wasn't in the Euro whilst in the EU, it would "inevitably" have been drawn into future bailouts as an EU member. Whatever the merits of such arguments (and one has to be sceptical, as the Torygraph has been predicting the imminent implosion of the Euro for years now) anything remotely logical was drowned out by the tabloid fodder that dominated the referendum campaign.surrey_commuter said:
Nobody made that argument. They talked about the benefits of autonomy but their economic projections was for somewhere between “no worse off” and “sunlit uplands”Stevo_666 said:
Well put W&G. A lot of the arguments to leave were that any economic downsides were outweighed by the autonomy and self governance points. Clearly others took a different view but there's no point crying over spilt milk now.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think the non-emotional Brexiteer argument was that FoM, contributions, being subject to the ECJ, QMV and the inability to vote out buffoons like JCJ were bigger downsides in aggregate than the cumulative trade benefits. Or put more abstractly, there is not a linear relationship between what you give and what you get back.rjsterry said:
Sure. Like most things, the more you commit the more you get out.Stevo_666 said:
There's a clear difference between the CPTPP and EU membership in terms of the number of strings, as has been pointed out above.rjsterry said:
All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.Stevo_666 said:
My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.wallace_and_gromit said:
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
Not my argument, but I think if you plugged a Brexiteer into the mains and forced them to be logical, the above is reasonably close to what you might get after you'd gently simmered their nether regions at a modest voltage.
They did not write on the side of a bus the bill to take back control will be £2bn a week.0 -
calling it its biggest trade deal since Brexit.https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/31/business/uk-joins-cptpp-trade-agreement-intl-hnk/index.html
The country will become the first new member, and the first in Europe, to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) since it came into force in 2018.
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the move early Friday, hailing it as a historic move that could help lift economic growth in the country by £1.8 billion ($2.2 billion) in the long run.
“The bloc is home to more 500 million people and will be worth 15% of global GDP once the UK joins,” Sunak’s office said.
Yep yep, we should have remained. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a start though.
'lift the economy by 1.8B' though. It does bring into context how much Covid cost us at 500,000,000,000 quid.0 -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65124741The government said the agreement was the UK's "biggest trade deal since Brexit".
However, the gains for the UK from joining are expected to be modest. The UK already has free trade deals with all of the members except Brunei and Malaysia, some of which were rolled over from its previous membership of the EU.
And even with some gains in trading the government only estimates it will add 0.08% to the size of the economy in 10 years. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which provides forecasts for the government, has previously said Brexit would reduce the UK's potential economic growth by about 4% in the long term.
But Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the deal demonstrated the "real economic benefits of our post-Brexit freedoms".
Lol- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I don't think you really understand, nor did the brexiters, that Britain's relationship with the continent has been, is, and always will be, the single biggest foreign policy decision that hangs over Britain. Ever since the 3rd Century, really. It will never go away. That is the essence of geopolitics.Stevo_666 said:
Well put W&G. A lot of the arguments to leave were that any economic downsides were outweighed by the autonomy and self governance points. Clearly others took a different view but there's no point crying over spilt milk now.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think the non-emotional Brexiteer argument was that FoM, contributions, being subject to the ECJ, QMV and the inability to vote out buffoons like JCJ were bigger downsides in aggregate than the cumulative trade benefits. Or put more abstractly, there is not a linear relationship between what you give and what you get back.rjsterry said:
Sure. Like most things, the more you commit the more you get out.Stevo_666 said:
There's a clear difference between the CPTPP and EU membership in terms of the number of strings, as has been pointed out above.rjsterry said:
All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.Stevo_666 said:
My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.wallace_and_gromit said:
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
Not my argument, but I think if you plugged a Brexiteer into the mains and forced them to be logical, the above is reasonably close to what you might get after you'd gently simmered their nether regions at a modest voltage.
I know you practically orgasm when you hear Thatcher, so you should pay attention to the lesson she actually taught the UK. The between the 30s and the late 70s Britain increasingly shut itself away from international trade, and you ended up with top quality companies like British Leyland and British coal, and having to go cap in hand to the IMF. Top hole stuff.
Then Thatcher realised you do need international competition, and part of that was signing Britain up to the single market. You have to remember the Tories were one of the main drivers of the single market we know today.
She did a lot wrong; she left whole swathes of Britain to rot, but at least she understood the value of international trade and the value of the wealth it created.
Seems all the Thatcher w@nkers seem to have forgotten that actual lesson.
All these lazy tosser workmen who spend most of their time drinking tea in their van and reading the sun rather than working, getting all their knickers in a twist that a bunch of foreigners turned up doing their job better than them - they're no different than militant miners who wanted triple what they were worth.
0 -
Not sure what you think the CPTPP is doing then, if not opening up international trade?rick_chasey said:
I don't think you really understand, nor did the brexiters, that Britain's relationship with the continent has been, is, and always will be, the single biggest foreign policy decision that hangs over Britain. Ever since the 3rd Century, really. It will never go away. That is the essence of geopolitics.Stevo_666 said:
Well put W&G. A lot of the arguments to leave were that any economic downsides were outweighed by the autonomy and self governance points. Clearly others took a different view but there's no point crying over spilt milk now.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think the non-emotional Brexiteer argument was that FoM, contributions, being subject to the ECJ, QMV and the inability to vote out buffoons like JCJ were bigger downsides in aggregate than the cumulative trade benefits. Or put more abstractly, there is not a linear relationship between what you give and what you get back.rjsterry said:
Sure. Like most things, the more you commit the more you get out.Stevo_666 said:
There's a clear difference between the CPTPP and EU membership in terms of the number of strings, as has been pointed out above.rjsterry said:
All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.Stevo_666 said:
My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.wallace_and_gromit said:
I've not studied this is any depth, so this may be wrong, but my understanding of the Pacific Partnership is that it is based on mutual recognition of local laws and standards rather than surrendering (in its legal rather than emotional context) legal competence in relevant areas to a supranational body, as is the way with the EU.kingstongraham said:So it's ok to sign up to standards set by the Pacific partnership but out of the question to sign up to the European ones.
Not my argument, but I think if you plugged a Brexiteer into the mains and forced them to be logical, the above is reasonably close to what you might get after you'd gently simmered their nether regions at a modest voltage.
I know you practically orgasm when you hear Thatcher, so you should pay attention to the lesson she actually taught the UK. The between the 30s and the late 70s Britain increasingly shut itself away from international trade, and you ended up with top quality companies like British Leyland and British coal, and having to go cap in hand to the IMF. Top hole stuff.
Then Thatcher realised you do need international competition, and part of that was signing Britain up to the single market. You have to remember the Tories were one of the main drivers of the single market we know today.
She did a lot wrong; she left whole swathes of Britain to rot, but at least she understood the value of international trade and the value of the wealth it created.
Seems all the Thatcher w@nkers seem to have forgotten that actual lesson.
All these lazy censored workmen who spend most of their time drinking tea in their van and reading the sun rather than working, getting all their knickers in a twist that a bunch of foreigners turned up doing their job better than them - they're no different than militant miners who wanted triple what they were worth.
What you don't seem to get is that Europe is a shrinking part of the global economy and this deal helps to access large and growing parts of that economy. Historically we have been 'overweight' in EU trade and as the linked article mentions:
Britain is poised to join an Indo-Pacific trade pact in a significant post-Brexit coup as the economy pivots away from the European Union.
This global strategy will likely pay dividends in the long term.
It is already a large trading bloc of a similar size to the EU, but with faster growing economies as menbers: members account for 13pc of per cent of world economic output and 15pc of global trade.
And there is potential for further significant expansion:
The CPTPP trading bloc is likely to expand further, particularly as Britain will be setting a precedent for members to join, with the US the most likely candidate to be next according to Mr Lyons.
It would be ironic if the EU eventually wanted to join "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Oh yes, secret CPTPP courts where multinationals sue countries over disputes. How's that for 'taking back control'?
In other news:
0 -
I know proportions are tricky for Brexiters and indeed you (if we're still working on the basis you aren't one) but trade has an inverse relationship with distance.
So for every time distance is doubled, trade volume is halved.
So it makes obvious sense to focus on the market on your doorstep first.
The UK will always do more trade with its neighbours than with Australia, because they are neighbours and not on the other side of the world. So why would you make trading with your neighbour more difficult in return for trade with countries much further away?
And that is before the fact that, currently, the Single Market is still the biggest market in the world so that is the first place any non-EU company wants to sell it's stuff when it goes global.0 -
I've posted it before, but here we go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade#:~:text=The gravity model of international,tends to fall with distance."Research shows that there is "overwhelming evidence that trade tends to fall with distance."[1]
So why trade continental trade with intercontinental trade? Because of the gravity of trade, it will be never be the same.0
