BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Not sure if you believe this oversold nonsense or are just trying to have the last word with RC.Stevo_666 said:
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
The gain from CPTPP will be one fiftieth of the loss from leaving the EU in a decades time.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rick_chasey said:
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.
It's worth remembering that the Telegraph was in favour of remain for quite a while.0 -
Does EXC DKs mean excluding D!cks? If so I would have thought the stay out total would be lower.briantrumpet said:Oh yes, secret CPTPP courts where multinationals sue countries over disputes. How's that for 'taking back control'?
In other news:0 -
Hahaha. When even Nick Ferrari is sceptical, and all Badenoch can fall back on is unicorns...
0 -
You need to stop crying over spilt milk. We still trade with the EU, but a natural consequence of developing trade agreements with faster growing and larger sections of the world economy will inevitably result in us doing a reducing protion of our trade with the EU.rick_chasey said: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.
Here's something to chew on from the press today:
Britain’s pro-Brussels camp has always ridiculed UK’s Pacific tilt as grandstanding, an implausible attempt to put flesh on the bones of Global Britain. The Pacific is far away and the volumes are trivial. The canonical ‘gravity’ model of trade is solemnly invoked, even though it has less traction in the digital age. We are told that the CPTPP can never be a swap for lost EU trade.
But it is not intended to be a swap. It is better understood as a direct challenge to the EU’s protectionist trade doctrines. It is an attempt to assert a rival Peelite doctrine of open global trade. It is a bid to seize intellectual leadership as the paralysed World Trade Organisation enters its agonies. “There is a battle going on over the operating system for global trade. The EU is going to discover that it can’t impose its laws on other countries,” said Mr Singham.
British accession to the CPTPP matters in the international political dance. It brings added G7 heft and free-market credibility at a critical moment. Taiwan, Korea, Thailand, Uruguay, Colombia, Ecuador, and Costa Rica have either applied or talked of doing so. The Philippines and Indonesia are exploring the option. China has also applied to join, which concentrates the mind in Washington."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
"The press" here defined as an opinion piece in the Telegraph.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
See above re: the oft invoked 'gravity model'. Declining importance.rick_chasey said: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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
More to chew on for the 'Little Europeans' who seem to lack Global and long term vision:
It matters because the CPTPP is where the growth is. With Britain a member, the CPTPP has the same GDP as the EU27. But it will grow much faster in future, increasing the benefit of Britain’s new access to the world’s most dynamic markets.
The CPTPP is of course a totally different organisation to the EU. It’s a genuine free trade area. It doesn’t have its own parliament or court, it doesn’t impose laws upon its members, and it is focused on opening markets, not harmonising and integrating. Trade specialists will say that this makes it less valuable as a trade agreement, but personally I prefer free trade plus national sovereignty. The fact that there are many free trade agreements around the world, but only one EU-style single market, suggests that most countries reach the same conclusion.
The CPTPP is important politically. Britain could not have joined as an EU member and it raises the bar to ever rejoining. So watch out for a big scare campaign from Remain Central to frighten us about food standards and ruthless competition, in the hope of delaying legal accession."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It's not though, is it? What empirical evidence is there that the gravity of trade is changing materially?Stevo_666 said:
See above re: the oft invoked 'gravity model'. Declining importance.rick_chasey said: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 -
It is self evident from the nature of digital services which represent an increasing proportion of trade and are not constrained by pure distance. Any evidence that this is not the case?rick_chasey said:
It's not though, is it? What empirical evidence is there that the gravity of trade is changing materially?Stevo_666 said:
See above re: the oft invoked 'gravity model'. Declining importance.rick_chasey said: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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Let's see shall we? This is a good strategic move given the size, growth and potenetial of the markets involved.rjsterry said:
Not sure if you believe this oversold nonsense or are just trying to have the last word with RC.Stevo_666 said:
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
The gain from CPTPP will be one fiftieth of the loss from leaving the EU in a decades time.
As said above, no point crying over EU spilt milk."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
How does rejoining an organisation that imposes its rules on countries take back control? Quite the opposite and we don't want that.Pross said:
Does EXC DKs mean excluding D!cks? If so I would have thought the stay out total would be lower.briantrumpet said:Oh yes, secret CPTPP courts where multinationals sue countries over disputes. How's that for 'taking back control'?
In other news:"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yeah. https://oxfordre.com/economics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.001.0001/acrefore-9780190625979-e-327;jsessionid=52D145F66EB88F593CF6CB670520BFE0#:~:text=The gravity model of international,for more than 50 years.Stevo_666 said:
It is self evident from the nature of digital services which represent an increasing proportion of trade and are not constrained by pure distance. Any evidence that this is not the case?rick_chasey said:
It's not though, is it? What empirical evidence is there that the gravity of trade is changing materially?Stevo_666 said:
See above re: the oft invoked 'gravity model'. Declining importance.rick_chasey said: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.
For example. That's the why it's called "gravity" it doesn't change with technology.
Technology and other developments help to increase trade, in general, but the proportions of trade still stay the same according to the gravity of trade.
What's better, it's one of the few things in economics that there is overwhelming empirical evidence for.0 -
"Crying over spilt milk" is obviously the new phrase both to admit Brexit is a shitshow and that we shouldn't try to forge a better trading relationship with the EU, despite it being a massive and wealthy market on our doorstep.
At present, a 60/40 majority seems to think that a better future would lie with the EU. Seems pretty forward-looking to me.0 -
My point about the geopolitical reality that the British relationship with the continent will always be the preeminent foreign policy dilemma is exactly why the split milk analogy is stupid and short-sighted.briantrumpet said:"Crying over spilt milk" is obviously the new phrase both to admit Brexit is a shitshow and that we shouldn't try to forge a better trading relationship with the EU, despite it being a massive and wealthy market on our doorstep.
At present, a 60/40 majority seems to think that a better future would lie with the EU. Seems pretty forward-looking to me.0 -
rick_chasey said:
My point about the geopolitical reality that the British relationship with the continent will always be the preeminent foreign policy dilemma is exactly why the split milk analogy is stupid and short-sighted.briantrumpet said:"Crying over spilt milk" is obviously the new phrase both to admit Brexit is a shitshow and that we shouldn't try to forge a better trading relationship with the EU, despite it being a massive and wealthy market on our doorstep.
At present, a 60/40 majority seems to think that a better future would lie with the EU. Seems pretty forward-looking to me.
But if that's their strongest argument left...0 -
Surely the consideration is not just the size of the market but the UK's share of it.Stevo_666 said:
Let's see shall we? This is a good strategic move given the size, growth and potenetial of the markets involved.rjsterry said:
Not sure if you believe this oversold nonsense or are just trying to have the last word with RC.Stevo_666 said:
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
The gain from CPTPP will be one fiftieth of the loss from leaving the EU in a decades time.
As said above, no point crying over EU spilt milk.
Taking the figures on face value, the loss from leaving the EU is 4.0% of GDP whilst the gain from joining the CPTPP is 0.1% (in approximate terms), with the UK's distance from CPTPP-land being a major driver of a lower share of the market when compared to the EU.
The CPTPP number is - as I understand it - a "point in time" estimate that doesn't account for higher growth rates or new countries joining, but even so, there will need to be a very lot of growth in CPTPP-land before the benefit gets anywhere near to offsetting the negative impact of leaving the EU.
So joining CPTPP is a benefit in its own right, but the combined "Leave EU and join CPTPP" is still a very large negative.0 -
This argument is fascinating as it throws up the possibility that trade is done predominantly with ones neighbours due to the presence of trade deals rather than countries doing trade deals with their neighbours because that led to the greatest gains.
0 -
When moving physical product it is the number one concern.
Before Brexit I could send a parcel next day to Belgium, Germany, France etc for £5. It is quadruple that now plus customs charges and takes 5 days.
It would cost at least £100 to send a parcel to Australia or any other of these other countries and take a ridiculous length of time.
This isn’t me ‘crying over spilt milk’ but a serious consequence of what happened to my business after Brexit.
This trade deal will do absolutely nothing for my or the millions of other small SME’s who move physical product.0 -
That’s not to say that it won’t be helpful to FS’ etc, and it isn’t bad news so I welcome it.
Those who have massively lost out since Brexit though are not ‘crying over spilt milk’ by wanting a closer and more pragmatic trade arrangement then we currently have with the EU.0 -
skyblueamateur said:
When moving physical product it is the number one concern.
Before Brexit I could send a parcel next day to Belgium, Germany, France etc for £5. It is quadruple that now plus customs charges and takes 5 days.
It would cost at least £100 to send a parcel to Australia or any other of these other countries and take a ridiculous length of time.
This isn’t me ‘crying over spilt milk’ but a serious consequence of what happened to my business after Brexit.
This trade deal will do absolutely nothing for my or the millions of other small SME’s who move physical product.
And to link that into RC's mention of Thatcher, that was exactly why she embraced it: a bigger, freer internal market is more competitive. And it might be why inflation is still rising in the UK, while it's rapidly falling in the EU already.0 -
(hate to break it but core inflation is still going up in the EU, it's almost exclusively to energy prices that it's shrinking)briantrumpet said:skyblueamateur said:When moving physical product it is the number one concern.
Before Brexit I could send a parcel next day to Belgium, Germany, France etc for £5. It is quadruple that now plus customs charges and takes 5 days.
It would cost at least £100 to send a parcel to Australia or any other of these other countries and take a ridiculous length of time.
This isn’t me ‘crying over spilt milk’ but a serious consequence of what happened to my business after Brexit.
This trade deal will do absolutely nothing for my or the millions of other small SME’s who move physical product.
And to link that into RC's mention of Thatcher, that was exactly why she embraced it: a bigger, freer internal market is more competitive. And it might be why inflation is still rising in the UK, while it's rapidly falling in the EU already.0 -
Deleted.
0 -
I think you are projecing a love of Thatcher onto SteveO. Whilst I am sure he loved her electoral success and lefty union bashing his nationalism would not have outweighed his economics and would have had him condemned as a wet.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.
Thatcherism has been described by Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, as a political platform emphasising free markets with restrained government spending and tax cuts that gets coupled with British nationalism both at home and abroad.0 -
Kemi Badenoch this morning saying this is more like the EEC that we originally joined, not like the EU.
Didn't we have a referendum about joining the EEC? This one isn't even planned to go before parliament. Talk about sovereignty is just a joke.
But if the EU also joins, and this makes trade between the UK and the EU easier, it must be good. If it makes trade between the EU and the UK more difficult to liberalise, then not.
Would China joining be a good thing? Would we have a veto on that? Would blocking their accession be a good move for us? I don't know.0 -
Ja look, believe it or not, I can have a nuanced view on Thatcher. I find it helpful to use the historical reference as she was really one of the pioneers of the single market and Brexiters tend to love her, so it's a yardstick for them.surrey_commuter said:
I think you are projecing a love of Thatcher onto SteveO. Whilst I am sure he loved her electoral success and lefty union bashing his nationalism would not have outweighed his economics and would have had him condemned as a wet.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.
Thatcherism has been described by Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, as a political platform emphasising free markets with restrained government spending and tax cuts that gets coupled with British nationalism both at home and abroad.
0 -
The next UK inflation reading will be interesting. The EU is a month ahead in terms of inflation reporting (Feb vs Jan for the UK) with the large fall this month attributable to the fall in wholesale energy costs, which one would assume would also apply to the UK.briantrumpet said:skyblueamateur said:When moving physical product it is the number one concern.
Before Brexit I could send a parcel next day to Belgium, Germany, France etc for £5. It is quadruple that now plus customs charges and takes 5 days.
It would cost at least £100 to send a parcel to Australia or any other of these other countries and take a ridiculous length of time.
This isn’t me ‘crying over spilt milk’ but a serious consequence of what happened to my business after Brexit.
This trade deal will do absolutely nothing for my or the millions of other small SME’s who move physical product.
And to link that into RC's mention of Thatcher, that was exactly why she embraced it: a bigger, freer internal market is more competitive. And it might be why inflation is still rising in the UK, while it's rapidly falling in the EU already.0 -
Inflation is coming down in the UK.briantrumpet said:skyblueamateur said:When moving physical product it is the number one concern.
Before Brexit I could send a parcel next day to Belgium, Germany, France etc for £5. It is quadruple that now plus customs charges and takes 5 days.
It would cost at least £100 to send a parcel to Australia or any other of these other countries and take a ridiculous length of time.
This isn’t me ‘crying over spilt milk’ but a serious consequence of what happened to my business after Brexit.
This trade deal will do absolutely nothing for my or the millions of other small SME’s who move physical product.
And to link that into RC's mention of Thatcher, that was exactly why she embraced it: a bigger, freer internal market is more competitive. And it might be why inflation is still rising in the UK, while it's rapidly falling in the EU already.0 -
My point was that SteveO support of the last 3 Tory PMs would suggest that his political north star is not Thatcherrick_chasey said:
Ja look, believe it or not, I can have a nuanced view on Thatcher. I find it helpful to use the historical reference as she was really one of the pioneers of the single market and Brexiters tend to love her, so it's a yardstick for them.surrey_commuter said:
I think you are projecing a love of Thatcher onto SteveO. Whilst I am sure he loved her electoral success and lefty union bashing his nationalism would not have outweighed his economics and would have had him condemned as a wet.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.
Thatcherism has been described by Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, as a political platform emphasising free markets with restrained government spending and tax cuts that gets coupled with British nationalism both at home and abroad.
For many years if you wanted to get ahead in the Tory Party you wrapped yourself in the flag and Thatcher. Brexit would suggest that her legacy is strongest among the haters.0 -
Given that inflation is a 12 month backwards looking measure, I'm looking forward to how the April inflation rate will be "spun" in the media. Unless something goes very badly awry in the next couple of months, the sharp rise in the CPI index in April 2022 will drop out of the averaging period and inflation will drop to under 8%. It should be around 9.5% next month.TheBigBean said:
Inflation is coming down in the UK.briantrumpet said:skyblueamateur said:When moving physical product it is the number one concern.
Before Brexit I could send a parcel next day to Belgium, Germany, France etc for £5. It is quadruple that now plus customs charges and takes 5 days.
It would cost at least £100 to send a parcel to Australia or any other of these other countries and take a ridiculous length of time.
This isn’t me ‘crying over spilt milk’ but a serious consequence of what happened to my business after Brexit.
This trade deal will do absolutely nothing for my or the millions of other small SME’s who move physical product.
And to link that into RC's mention of Thatcher, that was exactly why she embraced it: a bigger, freer internal market is more competitive. And it might be why inflation is still rising in the UK, while it's rapidly falling in the EU already.
Annualised inflation based on the last quarter is already under 4%.0
