BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

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.

Inflation is coming down in the UK.

Core inflation isn't coming down, neither is it in the EU.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

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.

Inflation is coming down in the UK.

Core inflation isn't coming down, neither is it in the EU.

True, but that's the flip side of the core inflation rate never getting as high as the headline rate.

The likely progression of Core Inflation probably underlies Sunak's less than bullish commitment re inflation reduction. (Halve the headline rate in a year rings a bell.)

rick_chasey

Sure. But for the same reason I admitted defeat in the discussion around inflation to BB it makes sense from a policy perspective to look at core inflation as energy prices stabilise.

Still looking at 5%+ core inflation which is a lot. That means more pain re rates.

I wonder with the UK culture of locking in fixed term rates over 2 or 5 years as opposed to floating mortgages, if the UK is less sensitive to rate changes over the short term and that will then lead to an overshoot?

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

Sure. But for the same reason I admitted defeat in the discussion around inflation to BB it makes sense from a policy perspective to look at core inflation as energy prices stabilise.

Still looking at 5%+ core inflation which is a lot. That means more pain re rates.

I wonder with the UK culture of locking in fixed term rates over 2 or 5 years as opposed to floating mortgages, if the UK is less sensitive to rate changes over the short term and that will then lead to an overshoot?

Re Core Inflation vs the headline inflation rate, they are different measures and serve difference purposes / affect different demographics.

From a central bank viewpoint, looking at core inflation probably makes sense, as it ignores supposedly one-off factors. But a major criticism of the BoE in this inflationary cycle is that they were too slow to "tighten" dismissing too many inflationary factors as "non-core" until they became embedded.

From the viewpoint of individuals, their own experiences are far more important than any other measure, rendering the headline rate and the core rate as no more than interesting (at best) statistics. For example, for my kids are Uni, they are incredibly aware of alcohol and train prices, but unfazed by gas / electricity prices as their accommodation is "all in" in terms of utility bills. Elder daughter is also very aware of food prices as she's self-catering whereas younger daughter is catered and can eat to her heart's content (which must be a loss-leader...). When they were at school, their major cost concern was clothes and iPhones!

So I guess like with all complex aspects of life, a range of measures is needed to fully appreciate the position.

Re fixed / variable interest rates and sensitivity thereto, I think the use of relatively short term fixes is likely to exacerbate the impact of rate changes relative to somewhere where long term fixes are more prevalent e.g. the US where long term fixes are the norm. US consumers are largely insulated from mortgage rate rises at the moment, to the benefit of the US economy, as a relatively small proportion of folk are affected by needing to refinance onto a higher rate each year.

Stevo_666

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.

It is just that though as you keep harking back to the 'good old days' of EU membership which wont be coming back. Think about the wealthy global market in stead of getting hung up on less than 15% of it.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

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.

It is just that though as you keep harking back to the 'good old days' of EU membership which wont be coming back. Think about the wealthy global market in stead of getting hung up on less than 15% of it.

Do you really think SM and CU membership is that far away?

I mean, every time I place someone nowadays it's held up by roughly 4-6 weeks and engages a tonne of HR people to jump the hurdles needed for European firms to hire people in the UK.

It's such a ballache I can't tell you. EU RTW is such a pain. There will be millions of versions of that story.

Stevo_666

wallace_and_gromit said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

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'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.

My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.

All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.

There's a clear difference between the CPTPP and EU membership in terms of the number of strings, as has been pointed out above.

Sure. Like most things, the more you commit the more you get out.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not sure what you think the CPTPP is doing then, if not opening up international trade?

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

Not sure if you believe this oversold nonsense or are just trying to have the last word with RC.

The gain from CPTPP will be one fiftieth of the loss from leaving the EU in a decades time.

Let's see shall we? This is a good strategic move given the size, growth and potenetial of the markets involved.

As said above, no point crying over EU spilt milk.

Surely the consideration is not just the size of the market but the UK's share of it.

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.

Again, its not about leaving one so that can join the other. Pros and cons of leaving the EU have been literally done to death on here so its pointless making those comparisons between the economic benefits or otherwise of EU membership vs CPTPP membership. I am looking at the opportunities a major new trade deal but all I seem to be getting back is 'but the EU was better'. So what if it was? Where we are now it's not one a question of choosing one or the other.

Edit: and to your point about our share of markets in the CPTPP, you can also argue that there is more potential there for the future, which is part of the point of joining. That's before you consider the growth rates in those countries and potential other new joiners.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

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'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.

My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.

All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.

There's a clear difference between the CPTPP and EU membership in terms of the number of strings, as has been pointed out above.

Sure. Like most things, the more you commit the more you get out.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Its the usual lazy centre leftie stereotyping. What else can we expect?

wallace_and_gromit

Stevo_666 said:

I am looking at the opportunities a major new trade deal but all I seem to be getting back is 'but the EU was better'. So what if it was?

I know this is a rhetorical question but the answer is that the party that thought it such a good idea to negotiate with the EU via insults, rhetoric and a total absence of rigorous analysis are still in charge. (e.g. Raab, who was unaware of the geographical significance of Dover-Calais in UK-EU trade is still a senior minister and f*ckits like Cash, Anderson, Brigden and Francois are influential MPs).

Their incompetence / lack of judgement needs maximum publicity rather than being conveniently forgotten so that if anyone feels compelled to vote for them next time they are aware that they are voting for a bunch of morons, notwithstanding Sunak's recent conversion to professionalism now that it suits him.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

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'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.

My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.

All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.

There's a clear difference between the CPTPP and EU membership in terms of the number of strings, as has been pointed out above.

Sure. Like most things, the more you commit the more you get out.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not sure what you think the CPTPP is doing then, if not opening up international trade?

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

Not sure if you believe this oversold nonsense or are just trying to have the last word with RC.

The gain from CPTPP will be one fiftieth of the loss from leaving the EU in a decades time.

Let's see shall we? This is a good strategic move given the size, growth and potenetial of the markets involved.

As said above, no point crying over EU spilt milk.

Surely the consideration is not just the size of the market but the UK's share of it.

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.

Again, its not about leaving one so that can join the other. Pros and cons of leaving the EU have been literally done to death on here so its pointless making those comparisons between the economic benefits or otherwise of EU membership vs CPTPP membership. I am looking at the opportunities a major new trade deal but all I seem to be getting back is 'but the EU was better'. So what if it was? Where we are now it's not one a question of choosing one or the other.

You approvingly posted a quote that "Accession would mean that the UK would not be able to rejoin the EU customs union."

So someone was obviously seeing that as a future possibility that they wanted to snuff out. Why are people not allowed to see it as a future possibility that they approve of?

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

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'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.

My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.

All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.

There's a clear difference between the CPTPP and EU membership in terms of the number of strings, as has been pointed out above.

Sure. Like most things, the more you commit the more you get out.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not sure what you think the CPTPP is doing then, if not opening up international trade?

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

Not sure if you believe this oversold nonsense or are just trying to have the last word with RC.

The gain from CPTPP will be one fiftieth of the loss from leaving the EU in a decades time.

Let's see shall we? This is a good strategic move given the size, growth and potenetial of the markets involved.

As said above, no point crying over EU spilt milk.

Surely the consideration is not just the size of the market but the UK's share of it.

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.

Again, its not about leaving one so that can join the other. Pros and cons of leaving the EU have been literally done to death on here so its pointless making those comparisons between the economic benefits or otherwise of EU membership vs CPTPP membership. I am looking at the opportunities a major new trade deal but all I seem to be getting back is 'but the EU was better'. So what if it was? Where we are now it's not one a question of choosing one or the other.

You approvingly posted a quote that "Accession would mean that the UK would not be able to rejoin the EU customs union."

So someone was obviously seeing that as a future possibility that they wanted to snuff out. Why are people not allowed to see it as a future possibility that they approve of?

I pointed out that it could have been a clever move by politicians who might want to stop us going back.

skyblueamateur

wallace_and_gromit said:

Stevo_666 said:

I am looking at the opportunities a major new trade deal but all I seem to be getting back is 'but the EU was better'. So what if it was?

I know this is a rhetorical question but the answer is that the party that thought it such a good idea to negotiate with the EU via insults, rhetoric and a total absence of rigorous analysis are still in charge. (e.g. Raab, who was unaware of the geographical significance of Dover-Calais in UK-EU trade is still a senior minister and f*ckits like Cash, Anderson, Brigden and Francois are influential MPs).

Their incompetence / lack of judgement needs maximum publicity rather than being conveniently forgotten so that if anyone feels compelled to vote for them next time they are aware that they are voting for a bunch of morons, notwithstanding Sunak's recent conversion to professionalism now that it suits him.

Great post. In one.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

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'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.

My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.

All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.

There's a clear difference between the CPTPP and EU membership in terms of the number of strings, as has been pointed out above.

Sure. Like most things, the more you commit the more you get out.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not sure what you think the CPTPP is doing then, if not opening up international trade?

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

Not sure if you believe this oversold nonsense or are just trying to have the last word with RC.

The gain from CPTPP will be one fiftieth of the loss from leaving the EU in a decades time.

Let's see shall we? This is a good strategic move given the size, growth and potenetial of the markets involved.

As said above, no point crying over EU spilt milk.

Surely the consideration is not just the size of the market but the UK's share of it.

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.

Again, its not about leaving one so that can join the other. Pros and cons of leaving the EU have been literally done to death on here so its pointless making those comparisons between the economic benefits or otherwise of EU membership vs CPTPP membership. I am looking at the opportunities a major new trade deal but all I seem to be getting back is 'but the EU was better'. So what if it was? Where we are now it's not one a question of choosing one or the other.

You approvingly posted a quote that "Accession would mean that the UK would not be able to rejoin the EU customs union."

So someone was obviously seeing that as a future possibility that they wanted to snuff out. Why are people not allowed to see it as a future possibility that they approve of?

I pointed out that it could have been a clever move by politicians who might want to stop us going back.

I misunderstood your use of the phrase "masterstoke by Rishi".

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

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.

It is just that though as you keep harking back to the 'good old days' of EU membership which wont be coming back. Think about the wealthy global market in stead of getting hung up on less than 15% of it.

Do you really think SM and CU membership is that far away?

I mean, every time I place someone nowadays it's held up by roughly 4-6 weeks and engages a tonne of HR people to jump the hurdles needed for European firms to hire people in the UK.

It's such a ballache I can't tell you. EU RTW is such a pain. There will be millions of versions of that story.

It's no different to the existing processes for people coming to the UK to work from US, Japan etc. And we seem to do this on a regular basis. Maybe you don't have right support to do it properly?

What makes you think we will rejoin the SM and CU any time soon?

Stevo_666

wallace_and_gromit said:

Stevo_666 said:

I am looking at the opportunities a major new trade deal but all I seem to be getting back is 'but the EU was better'. So what if it was?

I know this is a rhetorical question but the answer is that the party that thought it such a good idea to negotiate with the EU via insults, rhetoric and a total absence of rigorous analysis are still in charge. (e.g. Raab, who was unaware of the geographical significance of Dover-Calais in UK-EU trade is still a senior minister and f*ckits like Cash, Anderson, Brigden and Francois are influential MPs).

Their incompetence / lack of judgement needs maximum publicity rather than being conveniently forgotten so that if anyone feels compelled to vote for them next time they are aware that they are voting for a bunch of morons, notwithstanding Sunak's recent conversion to professionalism now that it suits him.

Not sure how that addresses my point?

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

Stevo_666 said:

I am looking at the opportunities a major new trade deal but all I seem to be getting back is 'but the EU was better'. So what if it was?

I know this is a rhetorical question but the answer is that the party that thought it such a good idea to negotiate with the EU via insults, rhetoric and a total absence of rigorous analysis are still in charge. (e.g. Raab, who was unaware of the geographical significance of Dover-Calais in UK-EU trade is still a senior minister and f*ckits like Cash, Anderson, Brigden and Francois are influential MPs).

Their incompetence / lack of judgement needs maximum publicity rather than being conveniently forgotten so that if anyone feels compelled to vote for them next time they are aware that they are voting for a bunch of morons, notwithstanding Sunak's recent conversion to professionalism now that it suits him.

Not sure how that addresses my point?

You seemed to be alluding to the Government making a clever move and W&G is reminding you that they are demonstrably f*ckwits. Seems to address the point.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

Stevo_666 said:

I am looking at the opportunities a major new trade deal but all I seem to be getting back is 'but the EU was better'. So what if it was?

I know this is a rhetorical question but the answer is that the party that thought it such a good idea to negotiate with the EU via insults, rhetoric and a total absence of rigorous analysis are still in charge. (e.g. Raab, who was unaware of the geographical significance of Dover-Calais in UK-EU trade is still a senior minister and f*ckits like Cash, Anderson, Brigden and Francois are influential MPs).

Their incompetence / lack of judgement needs maximum publicity rather than being conveniently forgotten so that if anyone feels compelled to vote for them next time they are aware that they are voting for a bunch of morons, notwithstanding Sunak's recent conversion to professionalism now that it suits him.

Not sure how that addresses my point?

You seemed to be alluding to the Government making a clever move and W&G is reminding you that they are demonstrably f*ckwits. Seems to address the point.

My question was to W&G. But in any event don't confuse facts with opinion.

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

Stevo_666 said:

I am looking at the opportunities a major new trade deal but all I seem to be getting back is 'but the EU was better'. So what if it was?

I know this is a rhetorical question but the answer is that the party that thought it such a good idea to negotiate with the EU via insults, rhetoric and a total absence of rigorous analysis are still in charge. (e.g. Raab, who was unaware of the geographical significance of Dover-Calais in UK-EU trade is still a senior minister and f*ckits like Cash, Anderson, Brigden and Francois are influential MPs).

Their incompetence / lack of judgement needs maximum publicity rather than being conveniently forgotten so that if anyone feels compelled to vote for them next time they are aware that they are voting for a bunch of morons, notwithstanding Sunak's recent conversion to professionalism now that it suits him.

Not sure how that addresses my point?

You seemed to be alluding to the Government making a clever move and W&G is reminding you that they are demonstrably f*ckwits. Seems to address the point.

My question was to W&G. But in any event don't confuse facts with opinion.

Like the opinion column you were quoting?

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

Stevo_666 said:

I am looking at the opportunities a major new trade deal but all I seem to be getting back is 'but the EU was better'. So what if it was?

I know this is a rhetorical question but the answer is that the party that thought it such a good idea to negotiate with the EU via insults, rhetoric and a total absence of rigorous analysis are still in charge. (e.g. Raab, who was unaware of the geographical significance of Dover-Calais in UK-EU trade is still a senior minister and f*ckits like Cash, Anderson, Brigden and Francois are influential MPs).

Their incompetence / lack of judgement needs maximum publicity rather than being conveniently forgotten so that if anyone feels compelled to vote for them next time they are aware that they are voting for a bunch of morons, notwithstanding Sunak's recent conversion to professionalism now that it suits him.

Not sure how that addresses my point?

You seemed to be alluding to the Government making a clever move and W&G is reminding you that they are demonstrably f*ckwits. Seems to address the point.

My question was to W&G. But in any event don't confuse facts with opinion.

Like the opinion column you were quoting?

I never claimed they were facts. You need to read stuff properly.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

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'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.

My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.

All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.

There's a clear difference between the CPTPP and EU membership in terms of the number of strings, as has been pointed out above.

Sure. Like most things, the more you commit the more you get out.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not sure what you think the CPTPP is doing then, if not opening up international trade?

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

Not sure if you believe this oversold nonsense or are just trying to have the last word with RC.

The gain from CPTPP will be one fiftieth of the loss from leaving the EU in a decades time.

Let's see shall we? This is a good strategic move given the size, growth and potenetial of the markets involved.

As said above, no point crying over EU spilt milk.

Surely the consideration is not just the size of the market but the UK's share of it.

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.

Again, its not about leaving one so that can join the other. Pros and cons of leaving the EU have been literally done to death on here so its pointless making those comparisons between the economic benefits or otherwise of EU membership vs CPTPP membership. I am looking at the opportunities a major new trade deal but all I seem to be getting back is 'but the EU was better'. So what if it was? Where we are now it's not one a question of choosing one or the other.

You approvingly posted a quote that "Accession would mean that the UK would not be able to rejoin the EU customs union."

So someone was obviously seeing that as a future possibility that they wanted to snuff out. Why are people not allowed to see it as a future possibility that they approve of?

I pointed out that it could have been a clever move by politicians who might want to stop us going back.

If it is a "clever move" to stop us going back, then surely it is ruling one out by choosing the other. Why would that be necessary if closer links with the EU were never going to happen anyway?

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

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'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.

My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.

All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.

There's a clear difference between the CPTPP and EU membership in terms of the number of strings, as has been pointed out above.

Sure. Like most things, the more you commit the more you get out.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not sure what you think the CPTPP is doing then, if not opening up international trade?

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

Not sure if you believe this oversold nonsense or are just trying to have the last word with RC.

The gain from CPTPP will be one fiftieth of the loss from leaving the EU in a decades time.

Let's see shall we? This is a good strategic move given the size, growth and potenetial of the markets involved.

As said above, no point crying over EU spilt milk.

Surely the consideration is not just the size of the market but the UK's share of it.

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.

Again, its not about leaving one so that can join the other. Pros and cons of leaving the EU have been literally done to death on here so its pointless making those comparisons between the economic benefits or otherwise of EU membership vs CPTPP membership. I am looking at the opportunities a major new trade deal but all I seem to be getting back is 'but the EU was better'. So what if it was? Where we are now it's not one a question of choosing one or the other.

You approvingly posted a quote that "Accession would mean that the UK would not be able to rejoin the EU customs union."

So someone was obviously seeing that as a future possibility that they wanted to snuff out. Why are people not allowed to see it as a future possibility that they approve of?

I pointed out that it could have been a clever move by politicians who might want to stop us going back.

If it is a "clever move" to stop us going back, then surely it is ruling one out by choosing the other. Why would that be necessary if closer links with the EU were never going to happen anyway?

Best ask those who are making the decisions on this. I just said it could be.

Stevo_666

More opinions from the press which paint a positive picture...

The announcement that the UK is to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans Pacific Partnership is a huge achievement. It should not be underestimated. This will open up free trade between the UK and 11 economies in the Indo Pacific region. It means free trade not just with Australia and New Zealand but with countries like Japan, Canada and Mexico, as well as Singapore and Vietnam. It will in time prove transformational for the British economy.

These countries have a population of 500 million and a GDP of $9 trillion. Japan is the third largest economy in the world. Of the others, many are fast growing and progressive economies, and then there are the more traditional, stable, developed economies of Australia, Canada and Singapore.

The UK will be in a unique position. It already has a free trade agreement with the EU which may not be quite as liberal as being a member of the single market, but nevertheless gives the UK tariff and quota free access to the EU market, as well as being able to import from the EU duty-free. No country has freer trade with the EU than the UK. Add to that free trade with 500 million people in the Indo-Pacific and the UK has amongst the best trading arrangements of any country on earth.

At the moment, the UK’s trade with the CPTPP countries constitutes just 7.8 per cent of its total trade. Critics may think that is unimportant, but remember: these countries are some of the most economically dynamic on earth. It is estimated that by 2030, 65 per cent of the world’s middle-class consumers will be in the Indo Pacific region. So for the naysayers who think the CPTPP may not be important to the British economy, let me remind them that the growth on trade with those 11 economies is already running at around 8 per cent a year.

Once trade barriers are torn down, expect that trade to grow a great deal faster. And while we have no idea how well British exporters will fare in those Indo Pacific markets, the opportunities have now opened up as never before. Getting into the CPTPP is not just beneficial in the short-term, it is locking the British economy into the most economically dynamic region in the world. It constitutes a very serious investment in the future.

Added to the trade statistics, it is important to remember that UK service suppliers are already deeply integrated with the Indo Pacific region. UK service suppliers exported nearly £30 billion worth of services to CPTPP members in 2019.

Also a reminder that we do have a free trade deal with EU which is better than any other country, according to the article.

Not bad for a bunch of alleged f***wits

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

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'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.

My point also, as mentioned above the EU deal comes with lots of strings attached.

All treaties have strings. That's what makes them treaties.

There's a clear difference between the CPTPP and EU membership in terms of the number of strings, as has been pointed out above.

Sure. Like most things, the more you commit the more you get out.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not sure what you think the CPTPP is doing then, if not opening up international trade?

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

Not sure if you believe this oversold nonsense or are just trying to have the last word with RC.

The gain from CPTPP will be one fiftieth of the loss from leaving the EU in a decades time.

Let's see shall we? This is a good strategic move given the size, growth and potenetial of the markets involved.

As said above, no point crying over EU spilt milk.

Surely the consideration is not just the size of the market but the UK's share of it.

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.

Again, its not about leaving one so that can join the other. Pros and cons of leaving the EU have been literally done to death on here so its pointless making those comparisons between the economic benefits or otherwise of EU membership vs CPTPP membership. I am looking at the opportunities a major new trade deal but all I seem to be getting back is 'but the EU was better'. So what if it was? Where we are now it's not one a question of choosing one or the other.

You approvingly posted a quote that "Accession would mean that the UK would not be able to rejoin the EU customs union."

So someone was obviously seeing that as a future possibility that they wanted to snuff out. Why are people not allowed to see it as a future possibility that they approve of?

I pointed out that it could have been a clever move by politicians who might want to stop us going back.

If it is a "clever move" to stop us going back, then surely it is ruling one out by choosing the other. Why would that be necessary if closer links with the EU were never going to happen anyway?

Best ask those who are making the decisions on this. I just said it could be.

So if you think it could be a clever move, that implies that there is a potential future in which closer links are possible, and this is something that the Conservative leadership believes is real enough to need to guard against. Interesting.

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

More opinions from the press which paint a positive picture...

The announcement that the UK is to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans Pacific Partnership is a huge achievement. It should not be underestimated. This will open up free trade between the UK and 11 economies in the Indo Pacific region. It means free trade not just with Australia and New Zealand but with countries like Japan, Canada and Mexico, as well as Singapore and Vietnam. It will in time prove transformational for the British economy.

These countries have a population of 500 million and a GDP of $9 trillion. Japan is the third largest economy in the world. Of the others, many are fast growing and progressive economies, and then there are the more traditional, stable, developed economies of Australia, Canada and Singapore.

The UK will be in a unique position. It already has a free trade agreement with the EU which may not be quite as liberal as being a member of the single market, but nevertheless gives the UK tariff and quota free access to the EU market, as well as being able to import from the EU duty-free. No country has freer trade with the EU than the UK. Add to that free trade with 500 million people in the Indo-Pacific and the UK has amongst the best trading arrangements of any country on earth.

At the moment, the UK’s trade with the CPTPP countries constitutes just 7.8 per cent of its total trade. Critics may think that is unimportant, but remember: these countries are some of the most economically dynamic on earth. It is estimated that by 2030, 65 per cent of the world’s middle-class consumers will be in the Indo Pacific region. So for the naysayers who think the CPTPP may not be important to the British economy, let me remind them that the growth on trade with those 11 economies is already running at around 8 per cent a year.

Once trade barriers are torn down, expect that trade to grow a great deal faster. And while we have no idea how well British exporters will fare in those Indo Pacific markets, the opportunities have now opened up as never before. Getting into the CPTPP is not just beneficial in the short-term, it is locking the British economy into the most economically dynamic region in the world. It constitutes a very serious investment in the future.

Added to the trade statistics, it is important to remember that UK service suppliers are already deeply integrated with the Indo Pacific region. UK service suppliers exported nearly £30 billion worth of services to CPTPP members in 2019.

Also a reminder that we do have a free trade deal with EU which is better than any other country, according to the article.

Not bad for a bunch of alleged f***wits

I wish I could get as glowing a report for improving my performance by 0.1% over the next decade.

wallace_and_gromit

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

Stevo_666 said:

I am looking at the opportunities a major new trade deal but all I seem to be getting back is 'but the EU was better'. So what if it was?

I know this is a rhetorical question but the answer is that the party that thought it such a good idea to negotiate with the EU via insults, rhetoric and a total absence of rigorous analysis are still in charge. (e.g. Raab, who was unaware of the geographical significance of Dover-Calais in UK-EU trade is still a senior minister and f*ckits like Cash, Anderson, Brigden and Francois are influential MPs).

Their incompetence / lack of judgement needs maximum publicity rather than being conveniently forgotten so that if anyone feels compelled to vote for them next time they are aware that they are voting for a bunch of morons, notwithstanding Sunak's recent conversion to professionalism now that it suits him.

Not sure how that addresses my point?

You seemed to be alluding to the Government making a clever move and W&G is reminding you that they are demonstrably f*ckwits. Seems to address the point.

My question was to W&G. But in any event don't confuse facts with opinion.

You asked why people keep going back to the decision to leave the EU. My explanation was that leaving the EU in the way we did was a f*ckwit decision, made by the same f*ckwits that are still in charge, and that reminding people of this fact will hopefully help their decision-making in the future.

When Starmer takes over, there will be much less reference to the decision to leave the EU, as he was a remainer.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

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.

It is just that though as you keep harking back to the 'good old days' of EU membership which wont be coming back. Think about the wealthy global market in stead of getting hung up on less than 15% of it.

Do you really think SM and CU membership is that far away?

I mean, every time I place someone nowadays it's held up by roughly 4-6 weeks and engages a tonne of HR people to jump the hurdles needed for European firms to hire people in the UK.

It's such a ballache I can't tell you. EU RTW is such a pain. There will be millions of versions of that story.

It's no different to the existing processes for people coming to the UK to work from US, Japan etc. And we seem to do this on a regular basis. Maybe you don't have right support to do it properly?

What makes you think we will rejoin the SM and CU any time soon?

Because it’s so expensive for no material gain.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

More opinions from the press which paint a positive picture...

The announcement that the UK is to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans Pacific Partnership is a huge achievement. It should not be underestimated. This will open up free trade between the UK and 11 economies in the Indo Pacific region. It means free trade not just with Australia and New Zealand but with countries like Japan, Canada and Mexico, as well as Singapore and Vietnam. It will in time prove transformational for the British economy.

These countries have a population of 500 million and a GDP of $9 trillion. Japan is the third largest economy in the world. Of the others, many are fast growing and progressive economies, and then there are the more traditional, stable, developed economies of Australia, Canada and Singapore.

The UK will be in a unique position. It already has a free trade agreement with the EU which may not be quite as liberal as being a member of the single market, but nevertheless gives the UK tariff and quota free access to the EU market, as well as being able to import from the EU duty-free. No country has freer trade with the EU than the UK. Add to that free trade with 500 million people in the Indo-Pacific and the UK has amongst the best trading arrangements of any country on earth.

At the moment, the UK’s trade with the CPTPP countries constitutes just 7.8 per cent of its total trade. Critics may think that is unimportant, but remember: these countries are some of the most economically dynamic on earth. It is estimated that by 2030, 65 per cent of the world’s middle-class consumers will be in the Indo Pacific region. So for the naysayers who think the CPTPP may not be important to the British economy, let me remind them that the growth on trade with those 11 economies is already running at around 8 per cent a year.

Once trade barriers are torn down, expect that trade to grow a great deal faster. And while we have no idea how well British exporters will fare in those Indo Pacific markets, the opportunities have now opened up as never before. Getting into the CPTPP is not just beneficial in the short-term, it is locking the British economy into the most economically dynamic region in the world. It constitutes a very serious investment in the future.

Added to the trade statistics, it is important to remember that UK service suppliers are already deeply integrated with the Indo Pacific region. UK service suppliers exported nearly £30 billion worth of services to CPTPP members in 2019.

Also a reminder that we do have a free trade deal with EU which is better than any other country, according to the article.

Not bad for a bunch of alleged f***wits

His actual quote is "No country has freer trade with the EU than the UK" now, you know better than anybody, that is complete nonsense. Do you think the author is a moron or a liar and from that, what can we deduce about the "facts" in the article that we do not know about?

this is my favourite benefit
"being able to import from the EU duty-free"

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

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.

Inflation is coming down in the UK.

Core inflation isn't coming down, neither is it in the EU.

I'm struggling to win an argument that CPI will be higher than 3.1% in 2023.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

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.

Inflation is coming down in the UK.

Core inflation isn't coming down, neither is it in the EU.

I'm struggling to win an argument that CPI will be higher than 3.1% in 2023.

Really? Seems a no brainer

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

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.

Inflation is coming down in the UK.

Core inflation isn't coming down, neither is it in the EU.

I'm struggling to win an argument that CPI will be higher than 3.1% in 2023.

Really? Seems a no brainer

That's the forecast.