FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > future of Europe conference
future of Europe conference
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ostafun OP Man
over a year ago
near ipswich |
EU lawmakers came together to discuss how they can improve the European Union – a troupe of interpretive dancers appeared out of nowhere.
They performed a routine around the hemicycle for the first ten minutes, with a narrator that reportedly whispered in French: "You have just arrived on the Moon... your hands become fish... You discover a new planet. Here, plants have taken power."
Money well spent i guess.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
" EU lawmakers came together to discuss how they can improve the European Union – a troupe of interpretive dancers appeared out of nowhere.
They performed a routine around the hemicycle for the first ten minutes, with a narrator that reportedly whispered in French: "You have just arrived on the Moon... your hands become fish... You discover a new planet. Here, plants have taken power."
Money well spent i guess. "
Did they come up with any plans or just watch this show. Did they really need the show to be able to get to work |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafun OP Man
over a year ago
near ipswich |
" EU lawmakers came together to discuss how they can improve the European Union – a troupe of interpretive dancers appeared out of nowhere.
They performed a routine around the hemicycle for the first ten minutes, with a narrator that reportedly whispered in French: "You have just arrived on the Moon... your hands become fish... You discover a new planet. Here, plants have taken power."
Money well spent i guess.
Did they come up with any plans or just watch this show. Did they really need the show to be able to get to work"
you not seen the video ? it was like a flash mob the look on the mep,s faces was priceless. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
" EU lawmakers came together to discuss how they can improve the European Union – a troupe of interpretive dancers appeared out of nowhere.
They performed a routine around the hemicycle for the first ten minutes, with a narrator that reportedly whispered in French: "You have just arrived on the Moon... your hands become fish... You discover a new planet. Here, plants have taken power."
Money well spent i guess.
Did they come up with any plans or just watch this show. Did they really need the show to be able to get to workyou not seen the video ? it was like a flash mob the look on the mep,s faces was priceless. "
No not seen it yet though sounds like I should sheet it out. Still makes a change from a banquet I guess |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafun OP Man
over a year ago
near ipswich |
" EU lawmakers came together to discuss how they can improve the European Union – a troupe of interpretive dancers appeared out of nowhere.
They performed a routine around the hemicycle for the first ten minutes, with a narrator that reportedly whispered in French: "You have just arrived on the Moon... your hands become fish... You discover a new planet. Here, plants have taken power."
Money well spent i guess.
Did they come up with any plans or just watch this show. Did they really need the show to be able to get to workyou not seen the video ? it was like a flash mob the look on the mep,s faces was priceless.
No not seen it yet though sounds like I should sheet it out. Still makes a change from a banquet I guess"
They probably had one of those too.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Farage seems to have enjoyed it I dont think he was there we dont have any mep,s now.  "
Imagine a global interconnected communications system that enables ex MEPs who now have jobs as pundits to view footage of events that they were not personally present to witness. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafun OP Man
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Farage seems to have enjoyed it I dont think he was there we dont have any mep,s now.
Imagine a global interconnected communications system that enables ex MEPs who now have jobs as pundits to view footage of events that they were not personally present to witness. "
Right, i wouldnt know not being a farage fan so personally i have no idea if he watched it.I found it hilarious. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Farage seems to have enjoyed it I dont think he was there we dont have any mep,s now.
Imagine a global interconnected communications system that enables ex MEPs who now have jobs as pundits to view footage of events that they were not personally present to witness. Right, i wouldnt know not being a farage fan so personally i have no idea if he watched it.I found it hilarious. "
So you’re commenting on something you have no knowledge of? You seemed so certain of his lack of awareness of the situation a few posts ago. Quite telling |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple
over a year ago
Cookstown |
" EU lawmakers came together to discuss how they can improve the European Union – a troupe of interpretive dancers appeared out of nowhere.
They performed a routine around the hemicycle for the first ten minutes, with a narrator that reportedly whispered in French: "You have just arrived on the Moon... your hands become fish... You discover a new planet. Here, plants have taken power."
Money well spent i guess. "
Probably cheaper than decorating a bus with falsehoods or repainting a jumbo jet ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" EU lawmakers came together to discuss how they can improve the European Union – a troupe of interpretive dancers appeared out of nowhere.
They performed a routine around the hemicycle for the first ten minutes, with a narrator that reportedly whispered in French: "You have just arrived on the Moon... your hands become fish... You discover a new planet. Here, plants have taken power."
Money well spent i guess. "
Glad we are out of the EU and not wasting £ on that drivel! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" EU lawmakers came together to discuss how they can improve the European Union – a troupe of interpretive dancers appeared out of nowhere.
They performed a routine around the hemicycle for the first ten minutes, with a narrator that reportedly whispered in French: "You have just arrived on the Moon... your hands become fish... You discover a new planet. Here, plants have taken power."
Money well spent i guess.
Glad we are out of the EU and not wasting £ on that drivel! "
We are still paying them £billions |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" EU lawmakers came together to discuss how they can improve the European Union – a troupe of interpretive dancers appeared out of nowhere.
They performed a routine around the hemicycle for the first ten minutes, with a narrator that reportedly whispered in French: "You have just arrived on the Moon... your hands become fish... You discover a new planet. Here, plants have taken power."
Money well spent i guess.
Probably cheaper than decorating a bus with falsehoods or repainting a jumbo jet ?"
Or building a tunnel bridge to Northern Ireland, or wasting £3.8 billion on fraudulent covid loans |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
" EU lawmakers came together to discuss how they can improve the European Union – a troupe of interpretive dancers appeared out of nowhere.
They performed a routine around the hemicycle for the first ten minutes, with a narrator that reportedly whispered in French: "You have just arrived on the Moon... your hands become fish... You discover a new planet. Here, plants have taken power."
Money well spent i guess.
Glad we are out of the EU and not wasting £ on that drivel! "
You do know the government figures show us as around three times worse off already due to leaving? So wasting three times as much now. That’s some saving.. oh hang on, no it isn’t! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"We are out of the EU and paying the “divorce bill” for the same. Oddly enough, we are doing better, not worse!!!"
You oddly enough don’t read the stats only the Daily Mail . The governments own numbers (not labours) state we are worse off.
You say the opposite to the government. Interesting approach to supporting them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We are paying the ransome for leaving the EU. Never should have joined in the first place!!!"
I thought we were doing better not worse? And why are we paying a ‘ransom’ when we hold all the cards and they need us more than we need them? There must been some really shit negotiating by Frost and his bunch of fuckwits |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" EU lawmakers came together to discuss how they can improve the European Union – a troupe of interpretive dancers appeared out of nowhere.
They performed a routine around the hemicycle for the first ten minutes, with a narrator that reportedly whispered in French: "You have just arrived on the Moon... your hands become fish... You discover a new planet. Here, plants have taken power."
Money well spent i guess.
Glad we are out of the EU and not wasting £ on that drivel! "
You next two posts contradict this one.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bernathCouple
over a year ago
Gloucestershire |
" EU lawmakers came together to discuss how they can improve the European Union – a troupe of interpretive dancers appeared out of nowhere.
They performed a routine around the hemicycle for the first ten minutes, with a narrator that reportedly whispered in French: "You have just arrived on the Moon... your hands become fish... You discover a new planet. Here, plants have taken power."
Money well spent i guess.
Glad we are out of the EU and not wasting £ on that drivel!
You next two posts contradict this one.
"
It reminds me of a typical outing of the daily mail articles, one contradicts the other. Pretty much how the Rabid right like it, upwards not forwards, forwards not downwards, and spinning, spinning endlessly  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA HovisMan
over a year ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
Was it cringe worthy. Yes.
Was it a waste of money. Yes.
Does it stick it in the face of those struggling to make ends meet. I think so.
Anyway, enough about the queen's speach. Anyone see those EU dancers ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"why are we paying a ‘ransom’ when we hold all the cards and they need us more than we need them? There must been some really shit negotiating by Frost and his bunch of fuckwits"
To be fair, Frost did have his hands tied by parliament.
To get the best deal you have to accurately determine where the other parties limits are, and then negotiate right up to them. You need to be able to threaten to walk away if you don't get what you want.
Sadly for Frost, half of the house of commons were making it very clear that 'no deal' was unacceptable. Indeed they were trying to get legislation introduced to prevent the government from even considering that option.
It doesn't matter how good a player Frost was, if you take away all the best cards, he's unlikely to achieve a good result. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"why are we paying a ‘ransom’ when we hold all the cards and they need us more than we need them? There must been some really shit negotiating by Frost and his bunch of fuckwits
To be fair, Frost did have his hands tied by parliament.
To get the best deal you have to accurately determine where the other parties limits are, and then negotiate right up to them. You need to be able to threaten to walk away if you don't get what you want.
Sadly for Frost, half of the house of commons were making it very clear that 'no deal' was unacceptable. Indeed they were trying to get legislation introduced to prevent the government from even considering that option.
It doesn't matter how good a player Frost was, if you take away all the best cards, he's unlikely to achieve a good result."
Threatening to walk away would have been a ridiculous tactic. The EU would have been marginally inconvenienced and the UK would be even more fucked with a no deal.
Everyone knew that we wouldn't get anywhere near as good a deal as we had as a member of the EU. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"why are we paying a ‘ransom’ when we hold all the cards and they need us more than we need them? There must been some really shit negotiating by Frost and his bunch of fuckwits
To be fair, Frost did have his hands tied by parliament.
To get the best deal you have to accurately determine where the other parties limits are, and then negotiate right up to them. You need to be able to threaten to walk away if you don't get what you want.
Sadly for Frost, half of the house of commons were making it very clear that 'no deal' was unacceptable. Indeed they were trying to get legislation introduced to prevent the government from even considering that option.
It doesn't matter how good a player Frost was, if you take away all the best cards, he's unlikely to achieve a good result."
He signed a deal, said it was a great deal and is now saying it isn’t a great deal, useless |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *al2001Man
over a year ago
kildare |
"why are we paying a ‘ransom’ when we hold all the cards and they need us more than we need them? There must been some really shit negotiating by Frost and his bunch of fuckwits
To be fair, Frost did have his hands tied by parliament.
To get the best deal you have to accurately determine where the other parties limits are, and then negotiate right up to them. You need to be able to threaten to walk away if you don't get what you want.
Sadly for Frost, half of the house of commons were making it very clear that 'no deal' was unacceptable. Indeed they were trying to get legislation introduced to prevent the government from even considering that option.
It doesn't matter how good a player Frost was, if you take away all the best cards, he's unlikely to achieve a good result."
This was their only tactic and was laughable then and now.
You would think you held all the cards and power as a huge nation threatening smaller nations.
Delusional as usual.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Was it cringe worthy. Yes.
Was it a waste of money. Yes.
Does it stick it in the face of those struggling to make ends meet. I think so.
Anyway, enough about the queen's speach. Anyone see those EU dancers ? "
Ha, very good point. Very rich man wearing medals he hasn’t earned sitting on a gold throne worth millions , what a bizarre and pointless spectacle |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *al2001Man
over a year ago
kildare |
"why are we paying a ‘ransom’ when we hold all the cards and they need us more than we need them? There must been some really shit negotiating by Frost and his bunch of fuckwits
To be fair, Frost did have his hands tied by parliament.
To get the best deal you have to accurately determine where the other parties limits are, and then negotiate right up to them. You need to be able to threaten to walk away if you don't get what you want.
Sadly for Frost, half of the house of commons were making it very clear that 'no deal' was unacceptable. Indeed they were trying to get legislation introduced to prevent the government from even considering that option.
It doesn't matter how good a player Frost was, if you take away all the best cards, he's unlikely to achieve a good result.
He signed a deal, said it was a great deal and is now saying it isn’t a great deal, useless "
Totally of his own making.
Where is this "super dooper" technology he said was going to sort out ni border issues he bullshitted about and would mean no sea border?
Now he's saying it's not working.
Does he think we are all as blind and dumb as his tory supporters? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"why are we paying a ‘ransom’ when we hold all the cards and they need us more than we need them? There must been some really shit negotiating by Frost and his bunch of fuckwits
To be fair, Frost did have his hands tied by parliament.
To get the best deal you have to accurately determine where the other parties limits are, and then negotiate right up to them. You need to be able to threaten to walk away if you don't get what you want.
Sadly for Frost, half of the house of commons were making it very clear that 'no deal' was unacceptable. Indeed they were trying to get legislation introduced to prevent the government from even considering that option.
It doesn't matter how good a player Frost was, if you take away all the best cards, he's unlikely to achieve a good result.
This was their only tactic and was laughable then and now.
You would think you held all the cards and power as a huge nation threatening smaller nations.
Delusional as usual.
"
That tactic is the equivalent of threatening to saw one of your legs off unless Nike sell you half price trainers.
Sure, Nike sell one less shoe to one customer. But you've only got one leg left. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"why are we paying a ‘ransom’ when we hold all the cards and they need us more than we need them? There must been some really shit negotiating by Frost and his bunch of fuckwits
To be fair, Frost did have his hands tied by parliament.
To get the best deal you have to accurately determine where the other parties limits are, and then negotiate right up to them. You need to be able to threaten to walk away if you don't get what you want.
Sadly for Frost, half of the house of commons were making it very clear that 'no deal' was unacceptable. Indeed they were trying to get legislation introduced to prevent the government from even considering that option.
It doesn't matter how good a player Frost was, if you take away all the best cards, he's unlikely to achieve a good result.
This was their only tactic and was laughable then and now.
You would think you held all the cards and power as a huge nation threatening smaller nations.
Delusional as usual.
That tactic is the equivalent of threatening to saw one of your legs off unless Nike sell you half price trainers.
Sure, Nike sell one less shoe to one customer. But you've only got one leg left."
I fully expect the remaining supporters of Brexit (all 17% of them) will now be stating that it should have been a no deal anyway , |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA HovisMan
over a year ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"why are we paying a ‘ransom’ when we hold all the cards and they need us more than we need them? There must been some really shit negotiating by Frost and his bunch of fuckwits
To be fair, Frost did have his hands tied by parliament.
To get the best deal you have to accurately determine where the other parties limits are, and then negotiate right up to them. You need to be able to threaten to walk away if you don't get what you want.
Sadly for Frost, half of the house of commons were making it very clear that 'no deal' was unacceptable. Indeed they were trying to get legislation introduced to prevent the government from even considering that option.
It doesn't matter how good a player Frost was, if you take away all the best cards, he's unlikely to achieve a good result."
while I take your point, the deal wasn't presented as "the best I could do considering". And if his hands were tied, why didn't the Tories campaign in 2019 to remove the handcuffs and renegotiate the deal?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"while I take your point, the deal wasn't presented as "the best I could do considering"."
That's politics for you. Events are always presented as a great accomplishment, even when it's clear that it all went horribly wrong.
"And if his hands were tied, why didn't the Tories campaign in 2019 to remove the handcuffs and renegotiate the deal?"
They did.
The 'handcuffs' I am talking about is Labor and LibDem MPs trying to get it written into legislation that 'no deal' must be excluded from any negotiation. The Tories managed to stop that move, but the endless debates about it made it clear to the EU that the UK wasn't about to walk away from the table. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"while I take your point, the deal wasn't presented as "the best I could do considering".
That's politics for you. Events are always presented as a great accomplishment, even when it's clear that it all went horribly wrong.
And if his hands were tied, why didn't the Tories campaign in 2019 to remove the handcuffs and renegotiate the deal?
They did.
The 'handcuffs' I am talking about is Labor and LibDem MPs trying to get it written into legislation that 'no deal' must be excluded from any negotiation. The Tories managed to stop that move, but the endless debates about it made it clear to the EU that the UK wasn't about to walk away from the table."
The EU also knew how ruinous no deal would be for the UK, and would only have been a minor inconvenience for them.
It would have been the weakest bargaining chip ever. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"while I take your point, the deal wasn't presented as "the best I could do considering".
That's politics for you. Events are always presented as a great accomplishment, even when it's clear that it all went horribly wrong.
And if his hands were tied, why didn't the Tories campaign in 2019 to remove the handcuffs and renegotiate the deal?
They did.
The 'handcuffs' I am talking about is Labor and LibDem MPs trying to get it written into legislation that 'no deal' must be excluded from any negotiation. The Tories managed to stop that move, but the endless debates about it made it clear to the EU that the UK wasn't about to walk away from the table."
Would a ‘no deal ‘ Brexit be good for the UK? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA HovisMan
over a year ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"while I take your point, the deal wasn't presented as "the best I could do considering".
That's politics for you. Events are always presented as a great accomplishment, even when it's clear that it all went horribly wrong.
And if his hands were tied, why didn't the Tories campaign in 2019 to remove the handcuffs and renegotiate the deal?
They did.
The 'handcuffs' I am talking about is Labor and LibDem MPs trying to get it written into legislation that 'no deal' must be excluded from any negotiation. The Tories managed to stop that move, but the endless debates about it made it clear to the EU that the UK wasn't about to walk away from the table."
and then Boris get a huge majority. He could do what he wanted. He chose to go with what he negotiated with has hands tied. That's on this government. Yiu can't blame labour and libs for that. They have next to no power anymore, especially given the new tory party all but elimated any dissenting voices.
Of course this all assumes no deal was really a position we would take and the EU believed that. I'm not so sure ... I think the "hands tied" is a useful get out for leavers. Especially as they still haven't solved the Irish border issue... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"while I take your point, the deal wasn't presented as "the best I could do considering".
That's politics for you. Events are always presented as a great accomplishment, even when it's clear that it all went horribly wrong.
And if his hands were tied, why didn't the Tories campaign in 2019 to remove the handcuffs and renegotiate the deal?
They did.
The 'handcuffs' I am talking about is Labor and LibDem MPs trying to get it written into legislation that 'no deal' must be excluded from any negotiation. The Tories managed to stop that move, but the endless debates about it made it clear to the EU that the UK wasn't about to walk away from the table.and then Boris get a huge majority. He could do what he wanted. He chose to go with what he negotiated with has hands tied. That's on this government. Yiu can't blame labour and libs for that. They have next to no power anymore, especially given the new tory party all but elimated any dissenting voices.
Of course this all assumes no deal was really a position we would take and the EU believed that. I'm not so sure ... I think the "hands tied" is a useful get out for leavers. Especially as they still haven't solved the Irish border issue..."
To argue devils advocate. Boris and Co didn't care about getting a deal or not. The catastrophic damage to the economy from a no deal brexit wouldn't effect them, and actually would have given them more opportunities to make some serious cash through disaster capitalism.
So maybe we can assume the EU knew that they didn't care how badly it effected the UK, and that they wouldn't have wanted the minor inconvenience of a no deal.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"while I take your point, the deal wasn't presented as "the best I could do considering".
That's politics for you. Events are always presented as a great accomplishment, even when it's clear that it all went horribly wrong.
And if his hands were tied, why didn't the Tories campaign in 2019 to remove the handcuffs and renegotiate the deal?
They did.
The 'handcuffs' I am talking about is Labor and LibDem MPs trying to get it written into legislation that 'no deal' must be excluded from any negotiation. The Tories managed to stop that move, but the endless debates about it made it clear to the EU that the UK wasn't about to walk away from the table.and then Boris get a huge majority. He could do what he wanted. He chose to go with what he negotiated with has hands tied. That's on this government. Yiu can't blame labour and libs for that. They have next to no power anymore, especially given the new tory party all but elimated any dissenting voices.
Of course this all assumes no deal was really a position we would take and the EU believed that. I'm not so sure ... I think the "hands tied" is a useful get out for leavers. Especially as they still haven't solved the Irish border issue..."
If our only ‘trump card’ was the threat of a no deal Brexit then we never had a chance of getting a good deal, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Would a ‘no deal ‘ Brexit be good for the UK? "
Good grief, no!
The UK was definitely an important part of the EU, and they would not have wanted us to walk away with no deal. Likewise, we definitely wanted a deal, because more trade and fewer restrictions is better for everyone.
If I were in charge, I would have walked away from the table a few months before the date, and let the UK leave with no deal. The idea being that this would force the EU to drop a few more restrictions. Hopefully we could then have announced 6 months later that we'd negotiated a great deal.
But I'm less risk averse than most people, meaning that I would be willing to risk the hardships of no deal in the hope of getting something better. Many people people think that the risk of no deal just wasn't worth taking.
If my plan had worked, we would now be in a much better position with the Northern Ireland problem, in that we would have made the EU come up with a solution, so the whole thing would now be their problem, not ours.
Still, happily for us all, I am not in charge so my opinion isn't worth worrying about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Would a ‘no deal ‘ Brexit be good for the UK?
Good grief, no!
The UK was definitely an important part of the EU, and they would not have wanted us to walk away with no deal. Likewise, we definitely wanted a deal, because more trade and fewer restrictions is better for everyone.
If I were in charge, I would have walked away from the table a few months before the date, and let the UK leave with no deal. The idea being that this would force the EU to drop a few more restrictions. Hopefully we could then have announced 6 months later that we'd negotiated a great deal.
But I'm less risk averse than most people, meaning that I would be willing to risk the hardships of no deal in the hope of getting something better. Many people people think that the risk of no deal just wasn't worth taking.
If my plan had worked, we would now be in a much better position with the Northern Ireland problem, in that we would have made the EU come up with a solution, so the whole thing would now be their problem, not ours.
Still, happily for us all, I am not in charge so my opinion isn't worth worrying about."
Lol. Good point. None of us are in charge and have anything to say that is worth worrying about.
The best option for Britain and for the EU, by far, would have been for the UK not to leave.
But alas. Here we are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Would a ‘no deal ‘ Brexit be good for the UK?
Good grief, no!
The UK was definitely an important part of the EU, and they would not have wanted us to walk away with no deal. Likewise, we definitely wanted a deal, because more trade and fewer restrictions is better for everyone.
If I were in charge, I would have walked away from the table a few months before the date, and let the UK leave with no deal. The idea being that this would force the EU to drop a few more restrictions. Hopefully we could then have announced 6 months later that we'd negotiated a great deal.
But I'm less risk averse than most people, meaning that I would be willing to risk the hardships of no deal in the hope of getting something better. Many people people think that the risk of no deal just wasn't worth taking.
If my plan had worked, we would now be in a much better position with the Northern Ireland problem, in that we would have made the EU come up with a solution, so the whole thing would now be their problem, not ours.
Still, happily for us all, I am not in charge so my opinion isn't worth worrying about."
So you agree the deal we signed was useless? We didn’t have to sign this deal, we weren’t forced by the EU, in fact we could have still walked away with a no deal, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA HovisMan
over a year ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"Would a ‘no deal ‘ Brexit be good for the UK?
Good grief, no!
The UK was definitely an important part of the EU, and they would not have wanted us to walk away with no deal. Likewise, we definitely wanted a deal, because more trade and fewer restrictions is better for everyone.
If I were in charge, I would have walked away from the table a few months before the date, and let the UK leave with no deal. The idea being that this would force the EU to drop a few more restrictions. Hopefully we could then have announced 6 months later that we'd negotiated a great deal.
But I'm less risk averse than most people, meaning that I would be willing to risk the hardships of no deal in the hope of getting something better. Many people people think that the risk of no deal just wasn't worth taking.
If my plan had worked, we would now be in a much better position with the Northern Ireland problem, in that we would have made the EU come up with a solution, so the whole thing would now be their problem, not ours.
Still, happily for us all, I am not in charge so my opinion isn't worth worrying about."
this makes the NIP sound like our solution ...
The irony under a no deal is it would mean the border is between NI and RoI. And based on other UK/EU borders, the EU would be checking whereas the UK wouldn't.
And if this then meant no FTA I wonder if that would mean that we'd need to not check any goods under WTO and MFN ...
Any plan that relied on our competence is a brave plan !! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Would a ‘no deal ‘ Brexit be good for the UK?
Good grief, no!
The UK was definitely an important part of the EU, and they would not have wanted us to walk away with no deal. Likewise, we definitely wanted a deal, because more trade and fewer restrictions is better for everyone.
If I were in charge, I would have walked away from the table a few months before the date, and let the UK leave with no deal. The idea being that this would force the EU to drop a few more restrictions. Hopefully we could then have announced 6 months later that we'd negotiated a great deal.
But I'm less risk averse than most people, meaning that I would be willing to risk the hardships of no deal in the hope of getting something better. Many people people think that the risk of no deal just wasn't worth taking.
If my plan had worked, we would now be in a much better position with the Northern Ireland problem, in that we would have made the EU come up with a solution, so the whole thing would now be their problem, not ours.
Still, happily for us all, I am not in charge so my opinion isn't worth worrying about.this makes the NIP sound like our solution ...
The irony under a no deal is it would mean the border is between NI and RoI. And based on other UK/EU borders, the EU would be checking whereas the UK wouldn't.
And if this then meant no FTA I wonder if that would mean that we'd need to not check any goods under WTO and MFN ...
Any plan that relied on our competence is a brave plan !!"
The country wasn’t ready for a no deal Brexit, it still can’t cope with the Brexit deal it signed and keeps postponing the checks required at UK ports, it would have been a complete disaster and the EU knew that . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So you agree the deal we signed was useless?"
I wouldn't say it was useless. It does remove some trade barriers, and it doesn't apply too much in the way of restrictions, so it's not a bad deal. But it certainly isn't a great deal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA HovisMan
over a year ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"So you agree the deal we signed was useless?
I wouldn't say it was useless. It does remove some trade barriers, and it doesn't apply too much in the way of restrictions, so it's not a bad deal. But it certainly isn't a great deal."
what would a good deal look like ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
We all agree the protocol was not thought through at all and Boris just lied to everyone.
My question is what do brexiteers not like about the rest of the deal? What is it about the formal trade procedures they don’t like as I’m struggling to see what they think could be improved whilst not being part of the EU.
Our trade is suffering because of the new barriers to trade such as customs formalities and subsequent increases of the costs for logistics.
We have labour shortages now clearly due to workers leaving the U.K. it’s affecting productivity in factories and causing nightmares in the NHS along with chronic problems with social care. That’s a long term problem we have brought upon ourselves.
. Business has all the quality assurance procedures for the EU in place because we’ve been actively developing them for decades so the red tape is known and costs already built in. Changing any rules regarding admin will add costs and be pointless. If we want to export to the EU we still have to abide by their rules. .
What do people want? Is it to be closer or is it to be using WTO and impose more costs?
We are not in the EU and have no say in their rules. What is so hard to grasp about that?
Blaming the EU because they have kept the rules we helped write seems just stupid.
We wanted out and we have to now accept the added costs along with reduced benefits.
No Tory party will admit it’s not working and try to make positive changes they will just blame the EU for abiding by their rules, We knew the rules before we were encouraged to leave. Didn’t we? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"what would a good deal look like ?"
That's easy.
Even fewer trade barriers and tariffs.
Acceptance by the EU that the UK is an "equivalent nation" meaning that our manufacturing and service standards are not below those in the EU. This would allow the UK to supply goods to the EU that meet EU standards without having to prove that those standards have been met. For example, the UK could supply electrical goods with EU plugs on them, without having to fill in vast quantities of forms to prove the point. This means that we would not need customs inspections at the borders, we would just trust each other.
I doubt that such a deal would have been possible, but that's what a good deal looks like. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bernathCouple
over a year ago
Gloucestershire |
"We all agree the protocol was not thought through at all and Boris just lied to everyone.
My question is what do brexiteers not like about the rest of the deal? What is it about the formal trade procedures they don’t like as I’m struggling to see what they think could be improved whilst not being part of the EU.
Our trade is suffering because of the new barriers to trade such as customs formalities and subsequent increases of the costs for logistics.
We have labour shortages now clearly due to workers leaving the U.K. it’s affecting productivity in factories and causing nightmares in the NHS along with chronic problems with social care. That’s a long term problem we have brought upon ourselves.
. Business has all the quality assurance procedures for the EU in place because we’ve been actively developing them for decades so the red tape is known and costs already built in. Changing any rules regarding admin will add costs and be pointless. If we want to export to the EU we still have to abide by their rules. .
What do people want? Is it to be closer or is it to be using WTO and impose more costs?
We are not in the EU and have no say in their rules. What is so hard to grasp about that?
Blaming the EU because they have kept the rules we helped write seems just stupid.
We wanted out and we have to now accept the added costs along with reduced benefits.
No Tory party will admit it’s not working and try to make positive changes they will just blame the EU for abiding by their rules, We knew the rules before we were encouraged to leave. Didn’t we? "
Get rid of the clowns of Brexit, put some actual adults in negotiating room, because clearly they couldn’t even negotiate their way out of paper bag. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"what would a good deal look like ?
That's easy.
Even fewer trade barriers and tariffs.
Acceptance by the EU that the UK is an "equivalent nation" meaning that our manufacturing and service standards are not below those in the EU. This would allow the UK to supply goods to the EU that meet EU standards without having to prove that those standards have been met. For example, the UK could supply electrical goods with EU plugs on them, without having to fill in vast quantities of forms to prove the point. This means that we would not need customs inspections at the borders, we would just trust each other.
I doubt that such a deal would have been possible, but that's what a good deal looks like."
Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K. maybe customs union would address this? We are losing far more than we are gaining by being out of that union.
It’s a positive for trade without any knee jerk right week sovereign nutters having a meltdown about losing their blue passports. It would aid our travel too. It seems sensible but the stubbornness to act for the good of the country is sadly overwhelming. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"We all agree the protocol was not thought through at all and Boris just lied to everyone.
My question is what do brexiteers not like about the rest of the deal? What is it about the formal trade procedures they don’t like as I’m struggling to see what they think could be improved whilst not being part of the EU.
Our trade is suffering because of the new barriers to trade such as customs formalities and subsequent increases of the costs for logistics.
We have labour shortages now clearly due to workers leaving the U.K. it’s affecting productivity in factories and causing nightmares in the NHS along with chronic problems with social care. That’s a long term problem we have brought upon ourselves.
. Business has all the quality assurance procedures for the EU in place because we’ve been actively developing them for decades so the red tape is known and costs already built in. Changing any rules regarding admin will add costs and be pointless. If we want to export to the EU we still have to abide by their rules. .
What do people want? Is it to be closer or is it to be using WTO and impose more costs?
We are not in the EU and have no say in their rules. What is so hard to grasp about that?
Blaming the EU because they have kept the rules we helped write seems just stupid.
We wanted out and we have to now accept the added costs along with reduced benefits.
No Tory party will admit it’s not working and try to make positive changes they will just blame the EU for abiding by their rules, We knew the rules before we were encouraged to leave. Didn’t we?
Get rid of the clowns of Brexit, put some actual adults in negotiating room, because clearly they couldn’t even negotiate their way out of paper bag."
Why? in the hope that they might want to rejoin?
not going to happen! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"We all agree the protocol was not thought through at all and Boris just lied to everyone.
My question is what do brexiteers not like about the rest of the deal? What is it about the formal trade procedures they don’t like as I’m struggling to see what they think could be improved whilst not being part of the EU.
Our trade is suffering because of the new barriers to trade such as customs formalities and subsequent increases of the costs for logistics.
We have labour shortages now clearly due to workers leaving the U.K. it’s affecting productivity in factories and causing nightmares in the NHS along with chronic problems with social care. That’s a long term problem we have brought upon ourselves.
. Business has all the quality assurance procedures for the EU in place because we’ve been actively developing them for decades so the red tape is known and costs already built in. Changing any rules regarding admin will add costs and be pointless. If we want to export to the EU we still have to abide by their rules. .
What do people want? Is it to be closer or is it to be using WTO and impose more costs?
We are not in the EU and have no say in their rules. What is so hard to grasp about that?
Blaming the EU because they have kept the rules we helped write seems just stupid.
We wanted out and we have to now accept the added costs along with reduced benefits.
No Tory party will admit it’s not working and try to make positive changes they will just blame the EU for abiding by their rules, We knew the rules before we were encouraged to leave. Didn’t we?
Get rid of the clowns of Brexit, put some actual adults in negotiating room, because clearly they couldn’t even negotiate their way out of paper bag.
Why? in the hope that they might want to rejoin?
not going to happen!"
No not to rejoin as that prize has passed . The point would be to reset the relationship to take advantage of being so close to our largest trading group.
The reality of us leaving is and will continue to be damaging to our economy. We need to stop worrying about saving face and do the best thing to boost growth and cut costs.
The billions we are now losing due to Brexit is draining cash out of U.K. business and that has to stop. No amount of cheap imports from the USA or China will fix at as those imports do more harm on top to U.K. business and jobs. So trade deals if they follow the present pattern are piling on more pain.
Customs union would help from day one .
Brexit was a mistake . We need the sensible politicians to improve the mess . It will never be as good as it was but it can be better than where we are.
The one reason the protocol doesn’t work is because we have put borders in place where before there were non. It’s that simple. It’s why we’re not implementing checks on imports . They are too expensive and hurt the economy. The export cost are already far higher which is a negative to export business.
Turns out Teresa May did have the right approach. Boris didn't have a clue. All he had was get Brexit done no more no less. That was the sum total of his plan.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K. maybe customs union would address this?"
I would disagree.
I can't believe that the EU would ever agree to a customs union whilst also allowing the UK to strike it's own trade deals. If that's true, a customs Union with the EU would leave us in the dreaded position of having to follow someone else's rules without having a say in how they are made. The EU are also going to want us to pay for that privilege.
The biggest reason for leaving is to gain the ability to trade outside of the EU on our own terms. If a customs union would prevent that, then it isn't worth having. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA HovisMan
over a year ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K. maybe customs union would address this?
I would disagree.
I can't believe that the EU would ever agree to a customs union whilst also allowing the UK to strike it's own trade deals. If that's true, a customs Union with the EU would leave us in the dreaded position of having to follow someone else's rules without having a say in how they are made. The EU are also going to want us to pay for that privilege.
The biggest reason for leaving is to gain the ability to trade outside of the EU on our own terms. If a customs union would prevent that, then it isn't worth having."
isn't the point the op of this quote making that tje deals on our own terms (so far) have been negative. So, why bother ? Better to join the CU and take the benefits from that.
Now, you'd probably say that the deals to date aren't indicative of future deals and we shouldn't close the door on those. But a valid question may be why the future deals will be different. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K. maybe customs union would address this?
I would disagree.
I can't believe that the EU would ever agree to a customs union whilst also allowing the UK to strike it's own trade deals. If that's true, a customs Union with the EU would leave us in the dreaded position of having to follow someone else's rules without having a say in how they are made. The EU are also going to want us to pay for that privilege.
The biggest reason for leaving is to gain the ability to trade outside of the EU on our own terms. If a customs union would prevent that, then it isn't worth having.isn't the point the op of this quote making that tje deals on our own terms (so far) have been negative. So, why bother ? Better to join the CU and take the benefits from that.
Now, you'd probably say that the deals to date aren't indicative of future deals and we shouldn't close the door on those. But a valid question may be why the future deals will be different. "
This is precisely the point. Whilst the Orinoco pal of great deals is wonderful the reality is proving somewhat disappointing .
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Does anyone really think we are going to strike a deal with China India or the US that will bring a huge benefit to the U.K. jobs wise.
Cheap labour and lower standards will be our undoing. The results will be we import more and undermine even more U.K. jobs.
JCB built in China to support that market they didn’t increase exports . The labour costs are a no brainier if a company is exporting more. It has to build there not here to compete.
Save jobs by having customs union not some fantasy reality doesn’t exist.
High educated and skilled workforce is a great catchphrase and an ideal to aim for but in the mean time why not look after our existing jobs and industries.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K."
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
"Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs."
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K.
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole."
You’ve answered the first part yourself in that the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them from the start . Increasing money out of the economy is not a positive is it?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too, I think that’s pretty straight forward. In both cases as you say expect job losses.
Talking gross numbers on a trade deal is very misleading. That’s was Truss does, mislead.
Now to manufacturing which is a relatively small percentage of our economy as we stand.
If we export more higher tech manufactured goods such as aero engines then yes that creates jobs but not many in the scheme of things. Weapons again not a large increase . Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping. . ( JCB have new factories in India and China)
Whilst I would question the morals of Lord Bamford around his tax avoidance and funding MPs I cannot attack his business ability in any way.
If he thinks it’s better to manufacture nearer the market in the middle and Far East it’s a given others will follow.
My business has a potentially very large client in Malaysia and the goods are shipped from the U.K. while the volumes are small. Once they increase there is no way we will expose ourselves to the vagaries of the logistics market on such long voyages. We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
To export aero engines around the world is financially viable as the price is high and competition limited but as you come down the manufacturing food chain the distances and labour costs push the advantage to the far east and Central America in the case of the US manufacturers.
The EU has similar wage levels to the U.K. along with the same manufacturing rules so we had a more level playing field.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
We do not have a large high tech manufacturing base and it will be decades before we do even with full government support. To ignore business growth on our doorstep is purely emotional politics not common sense.
If we did benefit from increased growth due to the reduction of trade barriers with Europe that would enable more spending on high tech developments in education, manufacturing and services to be better supported by the uk government and private industry.
Wishful thinking a plan is never successful you have to enable a plan.
For the record I believe we should as a nation snd along with other western countries have stopped the massive decades long exporting of our manufacturing base.
As a well known American economist stated the west invited China for dinner and have let them take the kitchen and cutlery home with them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K.
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole.
You’ve answered the first part yourself in that the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them from the start . Increasing money out of the economy is not a positive is it?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too, I think that’s pretty straight forward. In both cases as you say expect job losses.
Talking gross numbers on a trade deal is very misleading. That’s was Truss does, mislead.
Now to manufacturing which is a relatively small percentage of our economy as we stand.
If we export more higher tech manufactured goods such as aero engines then yes that creates jobs but not many in the scheme of things. Weapons again not a large increase . Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping. . ( JCB have new factories in India and China)
Whilst I would question the morals of Lord Bamford around his tax avoidance and funding MPs I cannot attack his business ability in any way.
If he thinks it’s better to manufacture nearer the market in the middle and Far East it’s a given others will follow.
My business has a potentially very large client in Malaysia and the goods are shipped from the U.K. while the volumes are small. Once they increase there is no way we will expose ourselves to the vagaries of the logistics market on such long voyages. We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
To export aero engines around the world is financially viable as the price is high and competition limited but as you come down the manufacturing food chain the distances and labour costs push the advantage to the far east and Central America in the case of the US manufacturers.
The EU has similar wage levels to the U.K. along with the same manufacturing rules so we had a more level playing field.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
We do not have a large high tech manufacturing base and it will be decades before we do even with full government support. To ignore business growth on our doorstep is purely emotional politics not common sense.
If we did benefit from increased growth due to the reduction of trade barriers with Europe that would enable more spending on high tech developments in education, manufacturing and services to be better supported by the uk government and private industry.
Wishful thinking a plan is never successful you have to enable a plan.
For the record I believe we should as a nation snd along with other western countries have stopped the massive decades long exporting of our manufacturing base.
As a well known American economist stated the west invited China for dinner and have let them take the kitchen and cutlery home with them. "
With regards to the Japan deal, are you saying we would be better off not having it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K.
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole.
You’ve answered the first part yourself in that the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them from the start . Increasing money out of the economy is not a positive is it?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too, I think that’s pretty straight forward. In both cases as you say expect job losses.
Talking gross numbers on a trade deal is very misleading. That’s was Truss does, mislead.
Now to manufacturing which is a relatively small percentage of our economy as we stand.
If we export more higher tech manufactured goods such as aero engines then yes that creates jobs but not many in the scheme of things. Weapons again not a large increase . Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping. . ( JCB have new factories in India and China)
Whilst I would question the morals of Lord Bamford around his tax avoidance and funding MPs I cannot attack his business ability in any way.
If he thinks it’s better to manufacture nearer the market in the middle and Far East it’s a given others will follow.
My business has a potentially very large client in Malaysia and the goods are shipped from the U.K. while the volumes are small. Once they increase there is no way we will expose ourselves to the vagaries of the logistics market on such long voyages. We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
To export aero engines around the world is financially viable as the price is high and competition limited but as you come down the manufacturing food chain the distances and labour costs push the advantage to the far east and Central America in the case of the US manufacturers.
The EU has similar wage levels to the U.K. along with the same manufacturing rules so we had a more level playing field.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
We do not have a large high tech manufacturing base and it will be decades before we do even with full government support. To ignore business growth on our doorstep is purely emotional politics not common sense.
If we did benefit from increased growth due to the reduction of trade barriers with Europe that would enable more spending on high tech developments in education, manufacturing and services to be better supported by the uk government and private industry.
Wishful thinking a plan is never successful you have to enable a plan.
For the record I believe we should as a nation snd along with other western countries have stopped the massive decades long exporting of our manufacturing base.
As a well known American economist stated the west invited China for dinner and have let them take the kitchen and cutlery home with them.
With regards to the Japan deal, are you saying we would be better off not having it?"
I’m saying our balance of payments so net exports will increase considerably less than our imports. You can decide if that’s a good thing or not given the limits of cash leaving the country. I think for every pound they spend with us we give them four pounds .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K.
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole.
You’ve answered the first part yourself in that the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them from the start . Increasing money out of the economy is not a positive is it?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too, I think that’s pretty straight forward. In both cases as you say expect job losses.
Talking gross numbers on a trade deal is very misleading. That’s was Truss does, mislead.
Now to manufacturing which is a relatively small percentage of our economy as we stand.
If we export more higher tech manufactured goods such as aero engines then yes that creates jobs but not many in the scheme of things. Weapons again not a large increase . Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping. . ( JCB have new factories in India and China)
Whilst I would question the morals of Lord Bamford around his tax avoidance and funding MPs I cannot attack his business ability in any way.
If he thinks it’s better to manufacture nearer the market in the middle and Far East it’s a given others will follow.
My business has a potentially very large client in Malaysia and the goods are shipped from the U.K. while the volumes are small. Once they increase there is no way we will expose ourselves to the vagaries of the logistics market on such long voyages. We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
To export aero engines around the world is financially viable as the price is high and competition limited but as you come down the manufacturing food chain the distances and labour costs push the advantage to the far east and Central America in the case of the US manufacturers.
The EU has similar wage levels to the U.K. along with the same manufacturing rules so we had a more level playing field.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
We do not have a large high tech manufacturing base and it will be decades before we do even with full government support. To ignore business growth on our doorstep is purely emotional politics not common sense.
If we did benefit from increased growth due to the reduction of trade barriers with Europe that would enable more spending on high tech developments in education, manufacturing and services to be better supported by the uk government and private industry.
Wishful thinking a plan is never successful you have to enable a plan.
For the record I believe we should as a nation snd along with other western countries have stopped the massive decades long exporting of our manufacturing base.
As a well known American economist stated the west invited China for dinner and have let them take the kitchen and cutlery home with them.
With regards to the Japan deal, are you saying we would be better off not having it?
I’m saying our balance of payments so net exports will increase considerably less than our imports. You can decide if that’s a good thing or not given the limits of cash leaving the country. I think for every pound they spend with us we give them four pounds .
"
Was it just as bad before when we was in the EU with the same trade deal with Japan or better. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"... the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them ..."
What are you basing that on? The Japanese love British stuff and will enthusiastically import whisky, craft ale, heritage goods, and fashion items (though obviously not Superdry stuff which they laugh at). Why do you think that we will import more than we export?
"With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too"
If the Australians can raise, slaughter, pack, freeze, and ship beef all the way over here and still sell it for less than British beef, then there's something very wrong with British farming.
If Australian beef is cheaper, clearly that shows that we should just buy the cheaper beef from Australia, and stop cattle farming over here. Why waste all that land on something that is better done elsewhere?
"Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping."
That's a good thing. It means that we get cheaper JCBs. Yes, some of the profits go overseas, but we still get a chunk of it coming back to the UK without having to do much for it.
"We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money."
See, even in your own company you expect to make more money by manufacturing abroad.
"Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?"
No, and we'd be stupid to try. What we can do is use that cheap labour force to manufacture our products more cheaply. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA HovisMan
over a year ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"... the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them ...
What are you basing that on? The Japanese love British stuff and will enthusiastically import whisky, craft ale, heritage goods, and fashion items (though obviously not Superdry stuff which they laugh at). Why do you think that we will import more than we export?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too
If the Australians can raise, slaughter, pack, freeze, and ship beef all the way over here and still sell it for less than British beef, then there's something very wrong with British farming.
If Australian beef is cheaper, clearly that shows that we should just buy the cheaper beef from Australia, and stop cattle farming over here. Why waste all that land on something that is better done elsewhere?
Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping.
That's a good thing. It means that we get cheaper JCBs. Yes, some of the profits go overseas, but we still get a chunk of it coming back to the UK without having to do much for it.
We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
See, even in your own company you expect to make more money by manufacturing abroad.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
No, and we'd be stupid to try. What we can do is use that cheap labour force to manufacture our products more cheaply."
Minford ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"... the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them ...
What are you basing that on? The Japanese love British stuff and will enthusiastically import whisky, craft ale, heritage goods, and fashion items (though obviously not Superdry stuff which they laugh at). Why do you think that we will import more than we export?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too
If the Australians can raise, slaughter, pack, freeze, and ship beef all the way over here and still sell it for less than British beef, then there's something very wrong with British farming.
If Australian beef is cheaper, clearly that shows that we should just buy the cheaper beef from Australia, and stop cattle farming over here. Why waste all that land on something that is better done elsewhere?
Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping.
That's a good thing. It means that we get cheaper JCBs. Yes, some of the profits go overseas, but we still get a chunk of it coming back to the UK without having to do much for it.
We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
See, even in your own company you expect to make more money by manufacturing abroad.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
No, and we'd be stupid to try. What we can do is use that cheap labour force to manufacture our products more cheaply."
1 I’m basing it on fact that we import far more from than we sell to and the latest deal re-enforces that. You should read it some time. Yes the Japanese like stuff but it is not the same as what they buy and sell in volume.
2. The Australians use the stock yard system like the US which means the cattle are not grass fed or spend time in fields. So no it’s not better done at all. They also receive growth hormones to make their weight gain quicker to slaughter younger. It’s disgusting and not something to compare with the U.K. farming.
3. There is no benefit for the U.K. of JCB building and selling abroad. The profits go to the Caribbean holding company so no benefit to the U.K. at all.
4. Yes we will make profits elsewhere and no tax will be paid in the U.K. . It’s bad for the U.K.
5. China making everything means we don’t which means we give them our money. Can you not see the problem with that over time? If you think that’s a good thing then that’s a real worry.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K.
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole.
You’ve answered the first part yourself in that the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them from the start . Increasing money out of the economy is not a positive is it?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too, I think that’s pretty straight forward. In both cases as you say expect job losses.
Talking gross numbers on a trade deal is very misleading. That’s was Truss does, mislead.
Now to manufacturing which is a relatively small percentage of our economy as we stand.
If we export more higher tech manufactured goods such as aero engines then yes that creates jobs but not many in the scheme of things. Weapons again not a large increase . Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping. . ( JCB have new factories in India and China)
Whilst I would question the morals of Lord Bamford around his tax avoidance and funding MPs I cannot attack his business ability in any way.
If he thinks it’s better to manufacture nearer the market in the middle and Far East it’s a given others will follow.
My business has a potentially very large client in Malaysia and the goods are shipped from the U.K. while the volumes are small. Once they increase there is no way we will expose ourselves to the vagaries of the logistics market on such long voyages. We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
To export aero engines around the world is financially viable as the price is high and competition limited but as you come down the manufacturing food chain the distances and labour costs push the advantage to the far east and Central America in the case of the US manufacturers.
The EU has similar wage levels to the U.K. along with the same manufacturing rules so we had a more level playing field.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
We do not have a large high tech manufacturing base and it will be decades before we do even with full government support. To ignore business growth on our doorstep is purely emotional politics not common sense.
If we did benefit from increased growth due to the reduction of trade barriers with Europe that would enable more spending on high tech developments in education, manufacturing and services to be better supported by the uk government and private industry.
Wishful thinking a plan is never successful you have to enable a plan.
For the record I believe we should as a nation snd along with other western countries have stopped the massive decades long exporting of our manufacturing base.
As a well known American economist stated the west invited China for dinner and have let them take the kitchen and cutlery home with them.
With regards to the Japan deal, are you saying we would be better off not having it?
I’m saying our balance of payments so net exports will increase considerably less than our imports. You can decide if that’s a good thing or not given the limits of cash leaving the country. I think for every pound they spend with us we give them four pounds .
Was it just as bad before when we was in the EU with the same trade deal with Japan or better. "
We traded at a deficit of £1.5-2Billion . The new deal will double that deficit. What do you think? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K.
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole.
You’ve answered the first part yourself in that the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them from the start . Increasing money out of the economy is not a positive is it?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too, I think that’s pretty straight forward. In both cases as you say expect job losses.
Talking gross numbers on a trade deal is very misleading. That’s was Truss does, mislead.
Now to manufacturing which is a relatively small percentage of our economy as we stand.
If we export more higher tech manufactured goods such as aero engines then yes that creates jobs but not many in the scheme of things. Weapons again not a large increase . Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping. . ( JCB have new factories in India and China)
Whilst I would question the morals of Lord Bamford around his tax avoidance and funding MPs I cannot attack his business ability in any way.
If he thinks it’s better to manufacture nearer the market in the middle and Far East it’s a given others will follow.
My business has a potentially very large client in Malaysia and the goods are shipped from the U.K. while the volumes are small. Once they increase there is no way we will expose ourselves to the vagaries of the logistics market on such long voyages. We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
To export aero engines around the world is financially viable as the price is high and competition limited but as you come down the manufacturing food chain the distances and labour costs push the advantage to the far east and Central America in the case of the US manufacturers.
The EU has similar wage levels to the U.K. along with the same manufacturing rules so we had a more level playing field.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
We do not have a large high tech manufacturing base and it will be decades before we do even with full government support. To ignore business growth on our doorstep is purely emotional politics not common sense.
If we did benefit from increased growth due to the reduction of trade barriers with Europe that would enable more spending on high tech developments in education, manufacturing and services to be better supported by the uk government and private industry.
Wishful thinking a plan is never successful you have to enable a plan.
For the record I believe we should as a nation snd along with other western countries have stopped the massive decades long exporting of our manufacturing base.
As a well known American economist stated the west invited China for dinner and have let them take the kitchen and cutlery home with them.
With regards to the Japan deal, are you saying we would be better off not having it?
I’m saying our balance of payments so net exports will increase considerably less than our imports. You can decide if that’s a good thing or not given the limits of cash leaving the country. I think for every pound they spend with us we give them four pounds .
Was it just as bad before when we was in the EU with the same trade deal with Japan or better.
We traded at a deficit of £1.5-2Billion . The new deal will double that deficit. What do you think? "
The deal is not new. It is a roll over of the one we had as part of the EU plus the addition of digital trade. So if we left the EU or stayed in the EU this would have been the situation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA HovisMan
over a year ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K.
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole.
You’ve answered the first part yourself in that the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them from the start . Increasing money out of the economy is not a positive is it?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too, I think that’s pretty straight forward. In both cases as you say expect job losses.
Talking gross numbers on a trade deal is very misleading. That’s was Truss does, mislead.
Now to manufacturing which is a relatively small percentage of our economy as we stand.
If we export more higher tech manufactured goods such as aero engines then yes that creates jobs but not many in the scheme of things. Weapons again not a large increase . Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping. . ( JCB have new factories in India and China)
Whilst I would question the morals of Lord Bamford around his tax avoidance and funding MPs I cannot attack his business ability in any way.
If he thinks it’s better to manufacture nearer the market in the middle and Far East it’s a given others will follow.
My business has a potentially very large client in Malaysia and the goods are shipped from the U.K. while the volumes are small. Once they increase there is no way we will expose ourselves to the vagaries of the logistics market on such long voyages. We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
To export aero engines around the world is financially viable as the price is high and competition limited but as you come down the manufacturing food chain the distances and labour costs push the advantage to the far east and Central America in the case of the US manufacturers.
The EU has similar wage levels to the U.K. along with the same manufacturing rules so we had a more level playing field.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
We do not have a large high tech manufacturing base and it will be decades before we do even with full government support. To ignore business growth on our doorstep is purely emotional politics not common sense.
If we did benefit from increased growth due to the reduction of trade barriers with Europe that would enable more spending on high tech developments in education, manufacturing and services to be better supported by the uk government and private industry.
Wishful thinking a plan is never successful you have to enable a plan.
For the record I believe we should as a nation snd along with other western countries have stopped the massive decades long exporting of our manufacturing base.
As a well known American economist stated the west invited China for dinner and have let them take the kitchen and cutlery home with them.
With regards to the Japan deal, are you saying we would be better off not having it?
I’m saying our balance of payments so net exports will increase considerably less than our imports. You can decide if that’s a good thing or not given the limits of cash leaving the country. I think for every pound they spend with us we give them four pounds .
Was it just as bad before when we was in the EU with the same trade deal with Japan or better.
We traded at a deficit of £1.5-2Billion . The new deal will double that deficit. What do you think?
The deal is not new. It is a roll over of the one we had as part of the EU plus the addition of digital trade. So if we left the EU or stayed in the EU this would have been the situation. "
isnt there an oddity that our quota is the surplus the EU don't use. So we could find we can't sell as much? My memory is hazy... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K.
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole.
You’ve answered the first part yourself in that the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them from the start . Increasing money out of the economy is not a positive is it?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too, I think that’s pretty straight forward. In both cases as you say expect job losses.
Talking gross numbers on a trade deal is very misleading. That’s was Truss does, mislead.
Now to manufacturing which is a relatively small percentage of our economy as we stand.
If we export more higher tech manufactured goods such as aero engines then yes that creates jobs but not many in the scheme of things. Weapons again not a large increase . Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping. . ( JCB have new factories in India and China)
Whilst I would question the morals of Lord Bamford around his tax avoidance and funding MPs I cannot attack his business ability in any way.
If he thinks it’s better to manufacture nearer the market in the middle and Far East it’s a given others will follow.
My business has a potentially very large client in Malaysia and the goods are shipped from the U.K. while the volumes are small. Once they increase there is no way we will expose ourselves to the vagaries of the logistics market on such long voyages. We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
To export aero engines around the world is financially viable as the price is high and competition limited but as you come down the manufacturing food chain the distances and labour costs push the advantage to the far east and Central America in the case of the US manufacturers.
The EU has similar wage levels to the U.K. along with the same manufacturing rules so we had a more level playing field.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
We do not have a large high tech manufacturing base and it will be decades before we do even with full government support. To ignore business growth on our doorstep is purely emotional politics not common sense.
If we did benefit from increased growth due to the reduction of trade barriers with Europe that would enable more spending on high tech developments in education, manufacturing and services to be better supported by the uk government and private industry.
Wishful thinking a plan is never successful you have to enable a plan.
For the record I believe we should as a nation snd along with other western countries have stopped the massive decades long exporting of our manufacturing base.
As a well known American economist stated the west invited China for dinner and have let them take the kitchen and cutlery home with them.
With regards to the Japan deal, are you saying we would be better off not having it?
I’m saying our balance of payments so net exports will increase considerably less than our imports. You can decide if that’s a good thing or not given the limits of cash leaving the country. I think for every pound they spend with us we give them four pounds .
Was it just as bad before when we was in the EU with the same trade deal with Japan or better.
We traded at a deficit of £1.5-2Billion . The new deal will double that deficit. What do you think?
The deal is not new. It is a roll over of the one we had as part of the EU plus the addition of digital trade. So if we left the EU or stayed in the EU this would have been the situation. "
Is it better or worse for the U.K. ? This isn’t about Brexit it’s about the future of our country outside outside the RU.
And the vast majority ( 70+ deals are rollovers ) are the same so what is the point?
The customs union will help us claw back the lost trade which I believe someone on her stated at 173 times worse than the new deals . I haven’t checked that ratio. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"1 I’m basing it on fact that we import far more from than we sell to and the latest deal re-enforces that. You should read it some time. Yes the Japanese like stuff but it is not the same as what they buy and sell in volume."
What I mean is, why do you think that we will import more from Japan than we export to it? The latest government figures (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1072411/japan-trade-and-investment-factsheet-2022-05-04.pdf) say that UK exports to Japan in 2021 totalled £11.5bn, while UK imports from Japan totalled £11.6bn. That's fairly even trading. What makes you think that the new deal will increase our imports, but won't increase our exports?
"2. The Australians use the stock yard system like the US which means the cattle are not grass fed or spend time in fields. So no it’s not better done at all."
I didn't say it was better done, I said it was cheaper. If people in the UK value animal welfare, then they won't buy Australian beef. If people in the UK don't value animal welfare, why are we insisting on standards that make beef so expensive?
The reality is that there will always be a market for British beef, because it tastes better than imported stuff. Australian imports are going to take the bottom end of the market, where price is most important, but the high quality British beef farmers have nothing to worry about from foreign imports.
"3. There is no benefit for the U.K. of JCB building and selling abroad. The profits go to the Caribbean holding company so no benefit to the U.K. at all."
I don't know the exact structure of the JCB companies, and they were set up in the absence of trade deals with the countries involved. If we had had a trade deal with India the structuring might have been different.
As it is now, the only benefit is that JCBs have become cheaper now that they're made in India.
"5. China making everything means we don’t which means we give them our money. Can you not see the problem with that over time? If you think that’s a good thing then that’s a real worry.
"
But the manufacturing of an item isn't the profitable part. The Chinese factories that make most of our stuff aren't making huge profits on their labours. What lots of UK companies have done is given the manufacturing to China, and kept all of the design, marketing, and licensing here. That means that China gets to make a small profit on manufacturing, and British companies get their product made for cheaper, meaning they have bigger profits (or they can sell for cheaper if that's what's best for them).
Your argument seems to be that every job moved abroad results in a permanently unemployed British person, and a drag on the economy. In reality what happens is that that person gets another job, doing something more productive. Moving simple low-paid repetitive tasks overseas frees up British labour to perform more profitable tasks here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"1 I’m basing it on fact that we import far more from than we sell to and the latest deal re-enforces that. You should read it some time. Yes the Japanese like stuff but it is not the same as what they buy and sell in volume.
What I mean is, why do you think that we will import more from Japan than we export to it? The latest government figures (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1072411/japan-trade-and-investment-factsheet-2022-05-04.pdf) say that UK exports to Japan in 2021 totalled £11.5bn, while UK imports from Japan totalled £11.6bn. That's fairly even trading. What makes you think that the new deal will increase our imports, but won't increase our exports?
2. The Australians use the stock yard system like the US which means the cattle are not grass fed or spend time in fields. So no it’s not better done at all.
I didn't say it was better done, I said it was cheaper. If people in the UK value animal welfare, then they won't buy Australian beef. If people in the UK don't value animal welfare, why are we insisting on standards that make beef so expensive?
The reality is that there will always be a market for British beef, because it tastes better than imported stuff. Australian imports are going to take the bottom end of the market, where price is most important, but the high quality British beef farmers have nothing to worry about from foreign imports.
3. There is no benefit for the U.K. of JCB building and selling abroad. The profits go to the Caribbean holding company so no benefit to the U.K. at all.
I don't know the exact structure of the JCB companies, and they were set up in the absence of trade deals with the countries involved. If we had had a trade deal with India the structuring might have been different.
As it is now, the only benefit is that JCBs have become cheaper now that they're made in India.
5. China making everything means we don’t which means we give them our money. Can you not see the problem with that over time? If you think that’s a good thing then that’s a real worry.
But the manufacturing of an item isn't the profitable part. The Chinese factories that make most of our stuff aren't making huge profits on their labours. What lots of UK companies have done is given the manufacturing to China, and kept all of the design, marketing, and licensing here. That means that China gets to make a small profit on manufacturing, and British companies get their product made for cheaper, meaning they have bigger profits (or they can sell for cheaper if that's what's best for them).
Your argument seems to be that every job moved abroad results in a permanently unemployed British person, and a drag on the economy. In reality what happens is that that person gets another job, doing something more productive. Moving simple low-paid repetitive tasks overseas frees up British labour to perform more profitable tasks here."
In the four years up to the implementation of Brexit and Covid the negative balance of trade with Japan was over £2B every year. When you look closely at the figures for 2021 imports dropped by a Billion and exports dropped by a quarter of a billion. So we can safely assume once markets settle the balance will return to circa £2B especially with the governments prediction of over a £1B extra imports stated on the announcement of the new deal.
In respect of investment.
The only long term benefit of trade with Japan which is a positive is their inward investment FDI which accounts for large sums of cash into things such as Nissan. How long that will continue without U.K. government subsidy is open to question.
As for beef there is no defence against the appalling treatment of the animals and the choice won’t be there as the cheaper nastier food will disappear into the prepared food manufacturers so the public won’t know .
You say we should take advantage of cheap labour.
So if we had kept the eu workers on lower paid jobs rather than employing U.K. workers then we would have been better off and had more skilled jobs for U.K. nationals that’s interesting.
By moving “actual” manufacturing jobs first over theoretical better better jobs will result in the rest of the economy suffering over time . We can only sell each other so much coffee or wash each other’s cars do much. . Manufacturing adds not only the factory jobs but the support jobs in the supply chain.
We have put borders up to our financial services which was our biggest sector so that’s not positive for growth.
To say we can do something better is presuming there is a better plan. Do you see one?
We need far more technicians in data sciences etc but eventually this leads to more automation and less jobs. Eventually the number of physical jobs will drop without manufacturing growth. So what do we do with the factory process workers and the taxi drivers etc? Jobs growth is critical to stop the country eventually having great swathes of unemployable young people.
The licensing you mention is now being moved with the manufacturing more and more including offshore for tax reasons.
We are making China rich that is clearly obvious . So who’s money “was” that? It was the West’s. As they develop they will and in fact are acquiring the design rights patents and development of more and more products, because we don’t retain production or design engineers in the U.K.
We have had to contract to other countries our nuclear power station builds because we no longer have the skills in the U.K. That is what is happening to manufacturing.
Many years ago I used to be involved in supplying big retailers with flat pack fireplaces . They were designed here but made in China using cheap labour. It was very profitable . Retail packing and distribution was done in the U.K. employing around a hundred people, plus the jobs at the packing material manufacturers
I’m no longer involved but the contractual design is now based with the manufacturing plant in the Far East. The product is ready for retail packed and delivered directly in containers to the RDCs The sale is done in the U.K. with the revenue going to the Caribbean. The business employs one person in the U.K. is that the job creation you mentioned?
The others hopefully found other employment.
JCB profits and investment is leaving the U.K. creating technical jobs in other countries how can you say that is a positive for the U.K.?
We have a large population and to keep moving jobs abroad is not beneficial in the long term.
China has kept a lid on inflation in the west for decades but sooner or later that control will be used for their advantage not ours .
The thing is I agree with the theory you mention but in reality we have thrown away the jobs before we have alternative supposedly better replacements. I’m not sure they will ever exist in great numbers in the U.K. based on history and financial constraints. Maybe we should just cross our fingers like the cabinet appear to do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K.
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole.
You’ve answered the first part yourself in that the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them from the start . Increasing money out of the economy is not a positive is it?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too, I think that’s pretty straight forward. In both cases as you say expect job losses.
Talking gross numbers on a trade deal is very misleading. That’s was Truss does, mislead.
Now to manufacturing which is a relatively small percentage of our economy as we stand.
If we export more higher tech manufactured goods such as aero engines then yes that creates jobs but not many in the scheme of things. Weapons again not a large increase . Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping. . ( JCB have new factories in India and China)
Whilst I would question the morals of Lord Bamford around his tax avoidance and funding MPs I cannot attack his business ability in any way.
If he thinks it’s better to manufacture nearer the market in the middle and Far East it’s a given others will follow.
My business has a potentially very large client in Malaysia and the goods are shipped from the U.K. while the volumes are small. Once they increase there is no way we will expose ourselves to the vagaries of the logistics market on such long voyages. We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
To export aero engines around the world is financially viable as the price is high and competition limited but as you come down the manufacturing food chain the distances and labour costs push the advantage to the far east and Central America in the case of the US manufacturers.
The EU has similar wage levels to the U.K. along with the same manufacturing rules so we had a more level playing field.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
We do not have a large high tech manufacturing base and it will be decades before we do even with full government support. To ignore business growth on our doorstep is purely emotional politics not common sense.
If we did benefit from increased growth due to the reduction of trade barriers with Europe that would enable more spending on high tech developments in education, manufacturing and services to be better supported by the uk government and private industry.
Wishful thinking a plan is never successful you have to enable a plan.
For the record I believe we should as a nation snd along with other western countries have stopped the massive decades long exporting of our manufacturing base.
As a well known American economist stated the west invited China for dinner and have let them take the kitchen and cutlery home with them.
With regards to the Japan deal, are you saying we would be better off not having it?
I’m saying our balance of payments so net exports will increase considerably less than our imports. You can decide if that’s a good thing or not given the limits of cash leaving the country. I think for every pound they spend with us we give them four pounds .
Was it just as bad before when we was in the EU with the same trade deal with Japan or better.
We traded at a deficit of £1.5-2Billion . The new deal will double that deficit. What do you think?
The deal is not new. It is a roll over of the one we had as part of the EU plus the addition of digital trade. So if we left the EU or stayed in the EU this would have been the situation.
Is it better or worse for the U.K. ? This isn’t about Brexit it’s about the future of our country outside outside the RU.
And the vast majority ( 70+ deals are rollovers ) are the same so what is the point?
The customs union will help us claw back the lost trade which I believe someone on her stated at 173 times worse than the new deals . I haven’t checked that ratio. "
Sorry is what better for the UK compared to what? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K.
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole.
You’ve answered the first part yourself in that the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them from the start . Increasing money out of the economy is not a positive is it?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too, I think that’s pretty straight forward. In both cases as you say expect job losses.
Talking gross numbers on a trade deal is very misleading. That’s was Truss does, mislead.
Now to manufacturing which is a relatively small percentage of our economy as we stand.
If we export more higher tech manufactured goods such as aero engines then yes that creates jobs but not many in the scheme of things. Weapons again not a large increase . Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping. . ( JCB have new factories in India and China)
Whilst I would question the morals of Lord Bamford around his tax avoidance and funding MPs I cannot attack his business ability in any way.
If he thinks it’s better to manufacture nearer the market in the middle and Far East it’s a given others will follow.
My business has a potentially very large client in Malaysia and the goods are shipped from the U.K. while the volumes are small. Once they increase there is no way we will expose ourselves to the vagaries of the logistics market on such long voyages. We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
To export aero engines around the world is financially viable as the price is high and competition limited but as you come down the manufacturing food chain the distances and labour costs push the advantage to the far east and Central America in the case of the US manufacturers.
The EU has similar wage levels to the U.K. along with the same manufacturing rules so we had a more level playing field.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
We do not have a large high tech manufacturing base and it will be decades before we do even with full government support. To ignore business growth on our doorstep is purely emotional politics not common sense.
If we did benefit from increased growth due to the reduction of trade barriers with Europe that would enable more spending on high tech developments in education, manufacturing and services to be better supported by the uk government and private industry.
Wishful thinking a plan is never successful you have to enable a plan.
For the record I believe we should as a nation snd along with other western countries have stopped the massive decades long exporting of our manufacturing base.
As a well known American economist stated the west invited China for dinner and have let them take the kitchen and cutlery home with them.
With regards to the Japan deal, are you saying we would be better off not having it?
I’m saying our balance of payments so net exports will increase considerably less than our imports. You can decide if that’s a good thing or not given the limits of cash leaving the country. I think for every pound they spend with us we give them four pounds .
Was it just as bad before when we was in the EU with the same trade deal with Japan or better.
We traded at a deficit of £1.5-2Billion . The new deal will double that deficit. What do you think?
The deal is not new. It is a roll over of the one we had as part of the EU plus the addition of digital trade. So if we left the EU or stayed in the EU this would have been the situation.
Is it better or worse for the U.K. ? This isn’t about Brexit it’s about the future of our country outside outside the RU.
And the vast majority ( 70+ deals are rollovers ) are the same so what is the point?
The customs union will help us claw back the lost trade which I believe someone on her stated at 173 times worse than the new deals . I haven’t checked that ratio.
Sorry is what better for the UK compared to what?"
Opening up talks on customs union with the EU. Not and I repeat NOT rejoining the EU.
The new deals are not filling the huge gap of loses brought about by Brexit . So if we had a practical pragmatic government who aren’t controlled by the extreme right they would look at the pros and cons and realise we need to be closer to the EU whether we like it or not.
What we have isn’t working and the signs are things may be getting worse. We need to help reduce import and expiry costs to Europe. It’s hurting profits and investment.
Or do we just wait and see for fifty years as Mogg suggests? That isn’t much of a plan.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K.
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole.
You’ve answered the first part yourself in that the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them from the start . Increasing money out of the economy is not a positive is it?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too, I think that’s pretty straight forward. In both cases as you say expect job losses.
Talking gross numbers on a trade deal is very misleading. That’s was Truss does, mislead.
Now to manufacturing which is a relatively small percentage of our economy as we stand.
If we export more higher tech manufactured goods such as aero engines then yes that creates jobs but not many in the scheme of things. Weapons again not a large increase . Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping. . ( JCB have new factories in India and China)
Whilst I would question the morals of Lord Bamford around his tax avoidance and funding MPs I cannot attack his business ability in any way.
If he thinks it’s better to manufacture nearer the market in the middle and Far East it’s a given others will follow.
My business has a potentially very large client in Malaysia and the goods are shipped from the U.K. while the volumes are small. Once they increase there is no way we will expose ourselves to the vagaries of the logistics market on such long voyages. We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
To export aero engines around the world is financially viable as the price is high and competition limited but as you come down the manufacturing food chain the distances and labour costs push the advantage to the far east and Central America in the case of the US manufacturers.
The EU has similar wage levels to the U.K. along with the same manufacturing rules so we had a more level playing field.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
We do not have a large high tech manufacturing base and it will be decades before we do even with full government support. To ignore business growth on our doorstep is purely emotional politics not common sense.
If we did benefit from increased growth due to the reduction of trade barriers with Europe that would enable more spending on high tech developments in education, manufacturing and services to be better supported by the uk government and private industry.
Wishful thinking a plan is never successful you have to enable a plan.
For the record I believe we should as a nation snd along with other western countries have stopped the massive decades long exporting of our manufacturing base.
As a well known American economist stated the west invited China for dinner and have let them take the kitchen and cutlery home with them.
With regards to the Japan deal, are you saying we would be better off not having it?
I’m saying our balance of payments so net exports will increase considerably less than our imports. You can decide if that’s a good thing or not given the limits of cash leaving the country. I think for every pound they spend with us we give them four pounds .
Was it just as bad before when we was in the EU with the same trade deal with Japan or better.
We traded at a deficit of £1.5-2Billion . The new deal will double that deficit. What do you think?
The deal is not new. It is a roll over of the one we had as part of the EU plus the addition of digital trade. So if we left the EU or stayed in the EU this would have been the situation.
Is it better or worse for the U.K. ? This isn’t about Brexit it’s about the future of our country outside outside the RU.
And the vast majority ( 70+ deals are rollovers ) are the same so what is the point?
The customs union will help us claw back the lost trade which I believe someone on her stated at 173 times worse than the new deals . I haven’t checked that ratio.
Sorry is what better for the UK compared to what?
Opening up talks on customs union with the EU. Not and I repeat NOT rejoining the EU.
The new deals are not filling the huge gap of loses brought about by Brexit . So if we had a practical pragmatic government who aren’t controlled by the extreme right they would look at the pros and cons and realise we need to be closer to the EU whether we like it or not.
What we have isn’t working and the signs are things may be getting worse. We need to help reduce import and expiry costs to Europe. It’s hurting profits and investment.
Or do we just wait and see for fifty years as Mogg suggests? That isn’t much of a plan.
"
Lol no wander I did not understand I was talking about the UK, Japan deal. I was wondering why it's a bad deal now but was not before when we had it via the EU. Also if it's a bad deal that the EU negotiated on our behalf, how many of the other deals are bad that they negotiated on our behalf. I think I posted on your other thread regarding the customs union |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K.
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole.
You’ve answered the first part yourself in that the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them from the start . Increasing money out of the economy is not a positive is it?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too, I think that’s pretty straight forward. In both cases as you say expect job losses.
Talking gross numbers on a trade deal is very misleading. That’s was Truss does, mislead.
Now to manufacturing which is a relatively small percentage of our economy as we stand.
If we export more higher tech manufactured goods such as aero engines then yes that creates jobs but not many in the scheme of things. Weapons again not a large increase . Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping. . ( JCB have new factories in India and China)
Whilst I would question the morals of Lord Bamford around his tax avoidance and funding MPs I cannot attack his business ability in any way.
If he thinks it’s better to manufacture nearer the market in the middle and Far East it’s a given others will follow.
My business has a potentially very large client in Malaysia and the goods are shipped from the U.K. while the volumes are small. Once they increase there is no way we will expose ourselves to the vagaries of the logistics market on such long voyages. We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
To export aero engines around the world is financially viable as the price is high and competition limited but as you come down the manufacturing food chain the distances and labour costs push the advantage to the far east and Central America in the case of the US manufacturers.
The EU has similar wage levels to the U.K. along with the same manufacturing rules so we had a more level playing field.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
We do not have a large high tech manufacturing base and it will be decades before we do even with full government support. To ignore business growth on our doorstep is purely emotional politics not common sense.
If we did benefit from increased growth due to the reduction of trade barriers with Europe that would enable more spending on high tech developments in education, manufacturing and services to be better supported by the uk government and private industry.
Wishful thinking a plan is never successful you have to enable a plan.
For the record I believe we should as a nation snd along with other western countries have stopped the massive decades long exporting of our manufacturing base.
As a well known American economist stated the west invited China for dinner and have let them take the kitchen and cutlery home with them.
With regards to the Japan deal, are you saying we would be better off not having it?
I’m saying our balance of payments so net exports will increase considerably less than our imports. You can decide if that’s a good thing or not given the limits of cash leaving the country. I think for every pound they spend with us we give them four pounds .
Was it just as bad before when we was in the EU with the same trade deal with Japan or better.
We traded at a deficit of £1.5-2Billion . The new deal will double that deficit. What do you think?
The deal is not new. It is a roll over of the one we had as part of the EU plus the addition of digital trade. So if we left the EU or stayed in the EU this would have been the situation.
Is it better or worse for the U.K. ? This isn’t about Brexit it’s about the future of our country outside outside the RU.
And the vast majority ( 70+ deals are rollovers ) are the same so what is the point?
The customs union will help us claw back the lost trade which I believe someone on her stated at 173 times worse than the new deals . I haven’t checked that ratio.
Sorry is what better for the UK compared to what?
Opening up talks on customs union with the EU. Not and I repeat NOT rejoining the EU.
The new deals are not filling the huge gap of loses brought about by Brexit . So if we had a practical pragmatic government who aren’t controlled by the extreme right they would look at the pros and cons and realise we need to be closer to the EU whether we like it or not.
What we have isn’t working and the signs are things may be getting worse. We need to help reduce import and expiry costs to Europe. It’s hurting profits and investment.
Or do we just wait and see for fifty years as Mogg suggests? That isn’t much of a plan.
Lol no wander I did not understand I was talking about the UK, Japan deal. I was wondering why it's a bad deal now but was not before when we had it via the EU. Also if it's a bad deal that the EU negotiated on our behalf, how many of the other deals are bad that they negotiated on our behalf. I think I posted on your other thread regarding the customs union"
No you’re missing my point . I wasn’t praising or criticising the existing deal. I’m trying to push this away from Brexit discussions just business. The freedom to do deals was great in theory but if they are negative compared to the existing deals why are we paying such a high price for this freedom? The loss of so much more trade with the EU is not worth the new free deals.
Customs union would bring so much more financial benefit. So why not discuss it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K.
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole.
You’ve answered the first part yourself in that the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them from the start . Increasing money out of the economy is not a positive is it?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too, I think that’s pretty straight forward. In both cases as you say expect job losses.
Talking gross numbers on a trade deal is very misleading. That’s was Truss does, mislead.
Now to manufacturing which is a relatively small percentage of our economy as we stand.
If we export more higher tech manufactured goods such as aero engines then yes that creates jobs but not many in the scheme of things. Weapons again not a large increase . Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping. . ( JCB have new factories in India and China)
Whilst I would question the morals of Lord Bamford around his tax avoidance and funding MPs I cannot attack his business ability in any way.
If he thinks it’s better to manufacture nearer the market in the middle and Far East it’s a given others will follow.
My business has a potentially very large client in Malaysia and the goods are shipped from the U.K. while the volumes are small. Once they increase there is no way we will expose ourselves to the vagaries of the logistics market on such long voyages. We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
To export aero engines around the world is financially viable as the price is high and competition limited but as you come down the manufacturing food chain the distances and labour costs push the advantage to the far east and Central America in the case of the US manufacturers.
The EU has similar wage levels to the U.K. along with the same manufacturing rules so we had a more level playing field.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
We do not have a large high tech manufacturing base and it will be decades before we do even with full government support. To ignore business growth on our doorstep is purely emotional politics not common sense.
If we did benefit from increased growth due to the reduction of trade barriers with Europe that would enable more spending on high tech developments in education, manufacturing and services to be better supported by the uk government and private industry.
Wishful thinking a plan is never successful you have to enable a plan.
For the record I believe we should as a nation snd along with other western countries have stopped the massive decades long exporting of our manufacturing base.
As a well known American economist stated the west invited China for dinner and have let them take the kitchen and cutlery home with them.
With regards to the Japan deal, are you saying we would be better off not having it?
I’m saying our balance of payments so net exports will increase considerably less than our imports. You can decide if that’s a good thing or not given the limits of cash leaving the country. I think for every pound they spend with us we give them four pounds .
Was it just as bad before when we was in the EU with the same trade deal with Japan or better.
We traded at a deficit of £1.5-2Billion . The new deal will double that deficit. What do you think?
The deal is not new. It is a roll over of the one we had as part of the EU plus the addition of digital trade. So if we left the EU or stayed in the EU this would have been the situation.
Is it better or worse for the U.K. ? This isn’t about Brexit it’s about the future of our country outside outside the RU.
And the vast majority ( 70+ deals are rollovers ) are the same so what is the point?
The customs union will help us claw back the lost trade which I believe someone on her stated at 173 times worse than the new deals . I haven’t checked that ratio.
Sorry is what better for the UK compared to what?
Opening up talks on customs union with the EU. Not and I repeat NOT rejoining the EU.
The new deals are not filling the huge gap of loses brought about by Brexit . So if we had a practical pragmatic government who aren’t controlled by the extreme right they would look at the pros and cons and realise we need to be closer to the EU whether we like it or not.
What we have isn’t working and the signs are things may be getting worse. We need to help reduce import and expiry costs to Europe. It’s hurting profits and investment.
Or do we just wait and see for fifty years as Mogg suggests? That isn’t much of a plan.
Lol no wander I did not understand I was talking about the UK, Japan deal. I was wondering why it's a bad deal now but was not before when we had it via the EU. Also if it's a bad deal that the EU negotiated on our behalf, how many of the other deals are bad that they negotiated on our behalf. I think I posted on your other thread regarding the customs union
No you’re missing my point . I wasn’t praising or criticising the existing deal. I’m trying to push this away from Brexit discussions just business. The freedom to do deals was great in theory but if they are negative compared to the existing deals why are we paying such a high price for this freedom? The loss of so much more trade with the EU is not worth the new free deals.
Customs union would bring so much more financial benefit. So why not discuss it? "
I must be missing the point for sure and also not speaking about brexit
I am saying that the UK / Japan deal which you say is bad is a copy and paste of the EU / Japan deal so surely that is just as bad as its a copy. Which makes me wonder about all the other deals that the UK was part of during our membership. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K.
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole.
You’ve answered the first part yourself in that the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them from the start . Increasing money out of the economy is not a positive is it?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too, I think that’s pretty straight forward. In both cases as you say expect job losses.
Talking gross numbers on a trade deal is very misleading. That’s was Truss does, mislead.
Now to manufacturing which is a relatively small percentage of our economy as we stand.
If we export more higher tech manufactured goods such as aero engines then yes that creates jobs but not many in the scheme of things. Weapons again not a large increase . Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping. . ( JCB have new factories in India and China)
Whilst I would question the morals of Lord Bamford around his tax avoidance and funding MPs I cannot attack his business ability in any way.
If he thinks it’s better to manufacture nearer the market in the middle and Far East it’s a given others will follow.
My business has a potentially very large client in Malaysia and the goods are shipped from the U.K. while the volumes are small. Once they increase there is no way we will expose ourselves to the vagaries of the logistics market on such long voyages. We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
To export aero engines around the world is financially viable as the price is high and competition limited but as you come down the manufacturing food chain the distances and labour costs push the advantage to the far east and Central America in the case of the US manufacturers.
The EU has similar wage levels to the U.K. along with the same manufacturing rules so we had a more level playing field.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
We do not have a large high tech manufacturing base and it will be decades before we do even with full government support. To ignore business growth on our doorstep is purely emotional politics not common sense.
If we did benefit from increased growth due to the reduction of trade barriers with Europe that would enable more spending on high tech developments in education, manufacturing and services to be better supported by the uk government and private industry.
Wishful thinking a plan is never successful you have to enable a plan.
For the record I believe we should as a nation snd along with other western countries have stopped the massive decades long exporting of our manufacturing base.
As a well known American economist stated the west invited China for dinner and have let them take the kitchen and cutlery home with them.
With regards to the Japan deal, are you saying we would be better off not having it?
I’m saying our balance of payments so net exports will increase considerably less than our imports. You can decide if that’s a good thing or not given the limits of cash leaving the country. I think for every pound they spend with us we give them four pounds .
Was it just as bad before when we was in the EU with the same trade deal with Japan or better.
We traded at a deficit of £1.5-2Billion . The new deal will double that deficit. What do you think?
The deal is not new. It is a roll over of the one we had as part of the EU plus the addition of digital trade. So if we left the EU or stayed in the EU this would have been the situation.
Is it better or worse for the U.K. ? This isn’t about Brexit it’s about the future of our country outside outside the RU.
And the vast majority ( 70+ deals are rollovers ) are the same so what is the point?
The customs union will help us claw back the lost trade which I believe someone on her stated at 173 times worse than the new deals . I haven’t checked that ratio.
Sorry is what better for the UK compared to what?
Opening up talks on customs union with the EU. Not and I repeat NOT rejoining the EU.
The new deals are not filling the huge gap of loses brought about by Brexit . So if we had a practical pragmatic government who aren’t controlled by the extreme right they would look at the pros and cons and realise we need to be closer to the EU whether we like it or not.
What we have isn’t working and the signs are things may be getting worse. We need to help reduce import and expiry costs to Europe. It’s hurting profits and investment.
Or do we just wait and see for fifty years as Mogg suggests? That isn’t much of a plan.
Lol no wander I did not understand I was talking about the UK, Japan deal. I was wondering why it's a bad deal now but was not before when we had it via the EU. Also if it's a bad deal that the EU negotiated on our behalf, how many of the other deals are bad that they negotiated on our behalf. I think I posted on your other thread regarding the customs union
No you’re missing my point . I wasn’t praising or criticising the existing deal. I’m trying to push this away from Brexit discussions just business. The freedom to do deals was great in theory but if they are negative compared to the existing deals why are we paying such a high price for this freedom? The loss of so much more trade with the EU is not worth the new free deals.
Customs union would bring so much more financial benefit. So why not discuss it?
I must be missing the point for sure and also not speaking about brexit
I am saying that the UK / Japan deal which you say is bad is a copy and paste of the EU / Japan deal so surely that is just as bad as its a copy. Which makes me wonder about all the other deals that the UK was part of during our membership. "
The new deal is expected to increase import purchases by £1.2B and the export sales by £300m from memory. ( full fact guesses at £1.2B total) So increased turnover but definitely a negative balance. The increases are due to tech and financial increases but you are correct in saying quotas have limited other planned benefits.
Even if the deal was a full copy and pace without any loses or benefits, is it worth the losses incurred as a result of leaving the customs union? I think the answer must be a resounding no.
A pragmatic approach to dealing with the EU including the option of customs union is surely a first step to recovering those huge losses. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA HovisMan
over a year ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K.
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole.
You’ve answered the first part yourself in that the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them from the start . Increasing money out of the economy is not a positive is it?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too, I think that’s pretty straight forward. In both cases as you say expect job losses.
Talking gross numbers on a trade deal is very misleading. That’s was Truss does, mislead.
Now to manufacturing which is a relatively small percentage of our economy as we stand.
If we export more higher tech manufactured goods such as aero engines then yes that creates jobs but not many in the scheme of things. Weapons again not a large increase . Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping. . ( JCB have new factories in India and China)
Whilst I would question the morals of Lord Bamford around his tax avoidance and funding MPs I cannot attack his business ability in any way.
If he thinks it’s better to manufacture nearer the market in the middle and Far East it’s a given others will follow.
My business has a potentially very large client in Malaysia and the goods are shipped from the U.K. while the volumes are small. Once they increase there is no way we will expose ourselves to the vagaries of the logistics market on such long voyages. We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
To export aero engines around the world is financially viable as the price is high and competition limited but as you come down the manufacturing food chain the distances and labour costs push the advantage to the far east and Central America in the case of the US manufacturers.
The EU has similar wage levels to the U.K. along with the same manufacturing rules so we had a more level playing field.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
We do not have a large high tech manufacturing base and it will be decades before we do even with full government support. To ignore business growth on our doorstep is purely emotional politics not common sense.
If we did benefit from increased growth due to the reduction of trade barriers with Europe that would enable more spending on high tech developments in education, manufacturing and services to be better supported by the uk government and private industry.
Wishful thinking a plan is never successful you have to enable a plan.
For the record I believe we should as a nation snd along with other western countries have stopped the massive decades long exporting of our manufacturing base.
As a well known American economist stated the west invited China for dinner and have let them take the kitchen and cutlery home with them.
With regards to the Japan deal, are you saying we would be better off not having it?
I’m saying our balance of payments so net exports will increase considerably less than our imports. You can decide if that’s a good thing or not given the limits of cash leaving the country. I think for every pound they spend with us we give them four pounds .
Was it just as bad before when we was in the EU with the same trade deal with Japan or better.
We traded at a deficit of £1.5-2Billion . The new deal will double that deficit. What do you think?
The deal is not new. It is a roll over of the one we had as part of the EU plus the addition of digital trade. So if we left the EU or stayed in the EU this would have been the situation.
Is it better or worse for the U.K. ? This isn’t about Brexit it’s about the future of our country outside outside the RU.
And the vast majority ( 70+ deals are rollovers ) are the same so what is the point?
The customs union will help us claw back the lost trade which I believe someone on her stated at 173 times worse than the new deals . I haven’t checked that ratio.
Sorry is what better for the UK compared to what?
Opening up talks on customs union with the EU. Not and I repeat NOT rejoining the EU.
The new deals are not filling the huge gap of loses brought about by Brexit . So if we had a practical pragmatic government who aren’t controlled by the extreme right they would look at the pros and cons and realise we need to be closer to the EU whether we like it or not.
What we have isn’t working and the signs are things may be getting worse. We need to help reduce import and expiry costs to Europe. It’s hurting profits and investment.
Or do we just wait and see for fifty years as Mogg suggests? That isn’t much of a plan.
Lol no wander I did not understand I was talking about the UK, Japan deal. I was wondering why it's a bad deal now but was not before when we had it via the EU. Also if it's a bad deal that the EU negotiated on our behalf, how many of the other deals are bad that they negotiated on our behalf. I think I posted on your other thread regarding the customs union
No you’re missing my point . I wasn’t praising or criticising the existing deal. I’m trying to push this away from Brexit discussions just business. The freedom to do deals was great in theory but if they are negative compared to the existing deals why are we paying such a high price for this freedom? The loss of so much more trade with the EU is not worth the new free deals.
Customs union would bring so much more financial benefit. So why not discuss it?
I must be missing the point for sure and also not speaking about brexit
I am saying that the UK / Japan deal which you say is bad is a copy and paste of the EU / Japan deal so surely that is just as bad as its a copy. Which makes me wonder about all the other deals that the UK was part of during our membership. "
maybe the EU Japan deal improved things for the UK versus no eu japan deal. But I'm not sure the UK Japan deal has moved the dial and arguably is a small step back (depending how you trade off the quota versus other changes).
However the point of all this was that leaving the EU was meant to see better deals having been unshackled from trying to find a one size fits all. Rolling over existing FTA doesn't really show added value of our freedom. (Unless the pount was being able say we could if we wanted to, even if we don't .. like immigration  ) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K.
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole.
You’ve answered the first part yourself in that the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them from the start . Increasing money out of the economy is not a positive is it?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too, I think that’s pretty straight forward. In both cases as you say expect job losses.
Talking gross numbers on a trade deal is very misleading. That’s was Truss does, mislead.
Now to manufacturing which is a relatively small percentage of our economy as we stand.
If we export more higher tech manufactured goods such as aero engines then yes that creates jobs but not many in the scheme of things. Weapons again not a large increase . Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping. . ( JCB have new factories in India and China)
Whilst I would question the morals of Lord Bamford around his tax avoidance and funding MPs I cannot attack his business ability in any way.
If he thinks it’s better to manufacture nearer the market in the middle and Far East it’s a given others will follow.
My business has a potentially very large client in Malaysia and the goods are shipped from the U.K. while the volumes are small. Once they increase there is no way we will expose ourselves to the vagaries of the logistics market on such long voyages. We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
To export aero engines around the world is financially viable as the price is high and competition limited but as you come down the manufacturing food chain the distances and labour costs push the advantage to the far east and Central America in the case of the US manufacturers.
The EU has similar wage levels to the U.K. along with the same manufacturing rules so we had a more level playing field.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
We do not have a large high tech manufacturing base and it will be decades before we do even with full government support. To ignore business growth on our doorstep is purely emotional politics not common sense.
If we did benefit from increased growth due to the reduction of trade barriers with Europe that would enable more spending on high tech developments in education, manufacturing and services to be better supported by the uk government and private industry.
Wishful thinking a plan is never successful you have to enable a plan.
For the record I believe we should as a nation snd along with other western countries have stopped the massive decades long exporting of our manufacturing base.
As a well known American economist stated the west invited China for dinner and have let them take the kitchen and cutlery home with them.
With regards to the Japan deal, are you saying we would be better off not having it?
I’m saying our balance of payments so net exports will increase considerably less than our imports. You can decide if that’s a good thing or not given the limits of cash leaving the country. I think for every pound they spend with us we give them four pounds .
Was it just as bad before when we was in the EU with the same trade deal with Japan or better.
We traded at a deficit of £1.5-2Billion . The new deal will double that deficit. What do you think?
The deal is not new. It is a roll over of the one we had as part of the EU plus the addition of digital trade. So if we left the EU or stayed in the EU this would have been the situation.
Is it better or worse for the U.K. ? This isn’t about Brexit it’s about the future of our country outside outside the RU.
And the vast majority ( 70+ deals are rollovers ) are the same so what is the point?
The customs union will help us claw back the lost trade which I believe someone on her stated at 173 times worse than the new deals . I haven’t checked that ratio.
Sorry is what better for the UK compared to what?
Opening up talks on customs union with the EU. Not and I repeat NOT rejoining the EU.
The new deals are not filling the huge gap of loses brought about by Brexit . So if we had a practical pragmatic government who aren’t controlled by the extreme right they would look at the pros and cons and realise we need to be closer to the EU whether we like it or not.
What we have isn’t working and the signs are things may be getting worse. We need to help reduce import and expiry costs to Europe. It’s hurting profits and investment.
Or do we just wait and see for fifty years as Mogg suggests? That isn’t much of a plan.
Lol no wander I did not understand I was talking about the UK, Japan deal. I was wondering why it's a bad deal now but was not before when we had it via the EU. Also if it's a bad deal that the EU negotiated on our behalf, how many of the other deals are bad that they negotiated on our behalf. I think I posted on your other thread regarding the customs union
No you’re missing my point . I wasn’t praising or criticising the existing deal. I’m trying to push this away from Brexit discussions just business. The freedom to do deals was great in theory but if they are negative compared to the existing deals why are we paying such a high price for this freedom? The loss of so much more trade with the EU is not worth the new free deals.
Customs union would bring so much more financial benefit. So why not discuss it?
I must be missing the point for sure and also not speaking about brexit
I am saying that the UK / Japan deal which you say is bad is a copy and paste of the EU / Japan deal so surely that is just as bad as its a copy. Which makes me wonder about all the other deals that the UK was part of during our membership.
The new deal is expected to increase import purchases by £1.2B and the export sales by £300m from memory. ( full fact guesses at £1.2B total) So increased turnover but definitely a negative balance. The increases are due to tech and financial increases but you are correct in saying quotas have limited other planned benefits.
Even if the deal was a full copy and pace without any loses or benefits, is it worth the losses incurred as a result of leaving the customs union? I think the answer must be a resounding no.
A pragmatic approach to dealing with the EU including the option of customs union is surely a first step to recovering those huge losses. "
I think maybe this is where the confusion lies. You seem to be focused on comparing the UK / Japan deal to the changes since leaving the EU. I am simply comparing our old deal with Japan to our new deal with Japan. As they are the same then the estimates you quote must be true for both deals. Which also makes me wonder about the other deals that were done during our membership - are they just as bad. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA HovisMan
over a year ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K.
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole.
You’ve answered the first part yourself in that the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them from the start . Increasing money out of the economy is not a positive is it?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too, I think that’s pretty straight forward. In both cases as you say expect job losses.
Talking gross numbers on a trade deal is very misleading. That’s was Truss does, mislead.
Now to manufacturing which is a relatively small percentage of our economy as we stand.
If we export more higher tech manufactured goods such as aero engines then yes that creates jobs but not many in the scheme of things. Weapons again not a large increase . Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping. . ( JCB have new factories in India and China)
Whilst I would question the morals of Lord Bamford around his tax avoidance and funding MPs I cannot attack his business ability in any way.
If he thinks it’s better to manufacture nearer the market in the middle and Far East it’s a given others will follow.
My business has a potentially very large client in Malaysia and the goods are shipped from the U.K. while the volumes are small. Once they increase there is no way we will expose ourselves to the vagaries of the logistics market on such long voyages. We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
To export aero engines around the world is financially viable as the price is high and competition limited but as you come down the manufacturing food chain the distances and labour costs push the advantage to the far east and Central America in the case of the US manufacturers.
The EU has similar wage levels to the U.K. along with the same manufacturing rules so we had a more level playing field.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
We do not have a large high tech manufacturing base and it will be decades before we do even with full government support. To ignore business growth on our doorstep is purely emotional politics not common sense.
If we did benefit from increased growth due to the reduction of trade barriers with Europe that would enable more spending on high tech developments in education, manufacturing and services to be better supported by the uk government and private industry.
Wishful thinking a plan is never successful you have to enable a plan.
For the record I believe we should as a nation snd along with other western countries have stopped the massive decades long exporting of our manufacturing base.
As a well known American economist stated the west invited China for dinner and have let them take the kitchen and cutlery home with them.
With regards to the Japan deal, are you saying we would be better off not having it?
I’m saying our balance of payments so net exports will increase considerably less than our imports. You can decide if that’s a good thing or not given the limits of cash leaving the country. I think for every pound they spend with us we give them four pounds .
Was it just as bad before when we was in the EU with the same trade deal with Japan or better.
We traded at a deficit of £1.5-2Billion . The new deal will double that deficit. What do you think?
The deal is not new. It is a roll over of the one we had as part of the EU plus the addition of digital trade. So if we left the EU or stayed in the EU this would have been the situation.
Is it better or worse for the U.K. ? This isn’t about Brexit it’s about the future of our country outside outside the RU.
And the vast majority ( 70+ deals are rollovers ) are the same so what is the point?
The customs union will help us claw back the lost trade which I believe someone on her stated at 173 times worse than the new deals . I haven’t checked that ratio.
Sorry is what better for the UK compared to what?
Opening up talks on customs union with the EU. Not and I repeat NOT rejoining the EU.
The new deals are not filling the huge gap of loses brought about by Brexit . So if we had a practical pragmatic government who aren’t controlled by the extreme right they would look at the pros and cons and realise we need to be closer to the EU whether we like it or not.
What we have isn’t working and the signs are things may be getting worse. We need to help reduce import and expiry costs to Europe. It’s hurting profits and investment.
Or do we just wait and see for fifty years as Mogg suggests? That isn’t much of a plan.
Lol no wander I did not understand I was talking about the UK, Japan deal. I was wondering why it's a bad deal now but was not before when we had it via the EU. Also if it's a bad deal that the EU negotiated on our behalf, how many of the other deals are bad that they negotiated on our behalf. I think I posted on your other thread regarding the customs union
No you’re missing my point . I wasn’t praising or criticising the existing deal. I’m trying to push this away from Brexit discussions just business. The freedom to do deals was great in theory but if they are negative compared to the existing deals why are we paying such a high price for this freedom? The loss of so much more trade with the EU is not worth the new free deals.
Customs union would bring so much more financial benefit. So why not discuss it?
I must be missing the point for sure and also not speaking about brexit
I am saying that the UK / Japan deal which you say is bad is a copy and paste of the EU / Japan deal so surely that is just as bad as its a copy. Which makes me wonder about all the other deals that the UK was part of during our membership.
The new deal is expected to increase import purchases by £1.2B and the export sales by £300m from memory. ( full fact guesses at £1.2B total) So increased turnover but definitely a negative balance. The increases are due to tech and financial increases but you are correct in saying quotas have limited other planned benefits.
Even if the deal was a full copy and pace without any loses or benefits, is it worth the losses incurred as a result of leaving the customs union? I think the answer must be a resounding no.
A pragmatic approach to dealing with the EU including the option of customs union is surely a first step to recovering those huge losses.
I think maybe this is where the confusion lies. You seem to be focused on comparing the UK / Japan deal to the changes since leaving the EU. I am simply comparing our old deal with Japan to our new deal with Japan. As they are the same then the estimates you quote must be true for both deals. Which also makes me wonder about the other deals that were done during our membership - are they just as bad."
what was the numbers before the Eu deal ?
In my head there are three permutations
The EU deal was bad for us. So why sign a new one that is just as bad?
The EU deal was good for us but could be made better. Why wasn't it?
The EU deal was good for us and couldn't be improved. So for this deal at least, leaving the EU had no benefit.
Have I missed a lane? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K.
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole.
You’ve answered the first part yourself in that the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them from the start . Increasing money out of the economy is not a positive is it?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too, I think that’s pretty straight forward. In both cases as you say expect job losses.
Talking gross numbers on a trade deal is very misleading. That’s was Truss does, mislead.
Now to manufacturing which is a relatively small percentage of our economy as we stand.
If we export more higher tech manufactured goods such as aero engines then yes that creates jobs but not many in the scheme of things. Weapons again not a large increase . Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping. . ( JCB have new factories in India and China)
Whilst I would question the morals of Lord Bamford around his tax avoidance and funding MPs I cannot attack his business ability in any way.
If he thinks it’s better to manufacture nearer the market in the middle and Far East it’s a given others will follow.
My business has a potentially very large client in Malaysia and the goods are shipped from the U.K. while the volumes are small. Once they increase there is no way we will expose ourselves to the vagaries of the logistics market on such long voyages. We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
To export aero engines around the world is financially viable as the price is high and competition limited but as you come down the manufacturing food chain the distances and labour costs push the advantage to the far east and Central America in the case of the US manufacturers.
The EU has similar wage levels to the U.K. along with the same manufacturing rules so we had a more level playing field.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
We do not have a large high tech manufacturing base and it will be decades before we do even with full government support. To ignore business growth on our doorstep is purely emotional politics not common sense.
If we did benefit from increased growth due to the reduction of trade barriers with Europe that would enable more spending on high tech developments in education, manufacturing and services to be better supported by the uk government and private industry.
Wishful thinking a plan is never successful you have to enable a plan.
For the record I believe we should as a nation snd along with other western countries have stopped the massive decades long exporting of our manufacturing base.
As a well known American economist stated the west invited China for dinner and have let them take the kitchen and cutlery home with them.
With regards to the Japan deal, are you saying we would be better off not having it?
I’m saying our balance of payments so net exports will increase considerably less than our imports. You can decide if that’s a good thing or not given the limits of cash leaving the country. I think for every pound they spend with us we give them four pounds .
Was it just as bad before when we was in the EU with the same trade deal with Japan or better.
We traded at a deficit of £1.5-2Billion . The new deal will double that deficit. What do you think?
The deal is not new. It is a roll over of the one we had as part of the EU plus the addition of digital trade. So if we left the EU or stayed in the EU this would have been the situation.
Is it better or worse for the U.K. ? This isn’t about Brexit it’s about the future of our country outside outside the RU.
And the vast majority ( 70+ deals are rollovers ) are the same so what is the point?
The customs union will help us claw back the lost trade which I believe someone on her stated at 173 times worse than the new deals . I haven’t checked that ratio.
Sorry is what better for the UK compared to what?
Opening up talks on customs union with the EU. Not and I repeat NOT rejoining the EU.
The new deals are not filling the huge gap of loses brought about by Brexit . So if we had a practical pragmatic government who aren’t controlled by the extreme right they would look at the pros and cons and realise we need to be closer to the EU whether we like it or not.
What we have isn’t working and the signs are things may be getting worse. We need to help reduce import and expiry costs to Europe. It’s hurting profits and investment.
Or do we just wait and see for fifty years as Mogg suggests? That isn’t much of a plan.
Lol no wander I did not understand I was talking about the UK, Japan deal. I was wondering why it's a bad deal now but was not before when we had it via the EU. Also if it's a bad deal that the EU negotiated on our behalf, how many of the other deals are bad that they negotiated on our behalf. I think I posted on your other thread regarding the customs union
No you’re missing my point . I wasn’t praising or criticising the existing deal. I’m trying to push this away from Brexit discussions just business. The freedom to do deals was great in theory but if they are negative compared to the existing deals why are we paying such a high price for this freedom? The loss of so much more trade with the EU is not worth the new free deals.
Customs union would bring so much more financial benefit. So why not discuss it?
I must be missing the point for sure and also not speaking about brexit
I am saying that the UK / Japan deal which you say is bad is a copy and paste of the EU / Japan deal so surely that is just as bad as its a copy. Which makes me wonder about all the other deals that the UK was part of during our membership.
The new deal is expected to increase import purchases by £1.2B and the export sales by £300m from memory. ( full fact guesses at £1.2B total) So increased turnover but definitely a negative balance. The increases are due to tech and financial increases but you are correct in saying quotas have limited other planned benefits.
Even if the deal was a full copy and pace without any loses or benefits, is it worth the losses incurred as a result of leaving the customs union? I think the answer must be a resounding no.
A pragmatic approach to dealing with the EU including the option of customs union is surely a first step to recovering those huge losses.
I think maybe this is where the confusion lies. You seem to be focused on comparing the UK / Japan deal to the changes since leaving the EU. I am simply comparing our old deal with Japan to our new deal with Japan. As they are the same then the estimates you quote must be true for both deals. Which also makes me wonder about the other deals that were done during our membership - are they just as bad."
Firstly we took part in negotiating those deals whilst party of the eu so partly our fault.
It’s irrelevant how good or bad the previous deal is in reality. The new one is proven worse or at best case even. So out of the shackles of the eu we have not made progress or received benefit. We have however lost a huge amount of trade due to the self imposed barriers and increased costs on our dealings the EU. Given the EU is by far our biggest market it has imposed the biggest increase in costs by a country mule. So the freedom to do the Japan or any other deal isn’t worth the losses.
It’s a foolish elf imposed loss or loss position to be in.
So I’m asking why ? It’s nonsense. And again a sensible government who had our interests at heart rather than a doctrine of right wing would look at making changes to help us all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Seeing as the latest global deals are all negative for the U.K.
In what way are the deals negative? Can you give some examples?
Given the relative size of Australia and New Zealand and Japan our deals have been pathetic and will increase the negative balance of payments along with undermining British jobs.
Every trade deal ever made has resulted in job losses. The point of trade deals is to allow us to sell our goods over there, and to allow us to benefit from cheap goods from over there. Yes, cheap imports will result in British jobs being lost, but the expectation is that increased exports will create new jobs. That's bad for the people who lose their jobs, but it's good for the economy as a whole.
You’ve answered the first part yourself in that the trade deal with Japan will see their increased exports to us far outweigh our small increases in exports to them from the start . Increasing money out of the economy is not a positive is it?
With AUS and NZ cheap beef will undermine farms in this country and potentially good processors too, I think that’s pretty straight forward. In both cases as you say expect job losses.
Talking gross numbers on a trade deal is very misleading. That’s was Truss does, mislead.
Now to manufacturing which is a relatively small percentage of our economy as we stand.
If we export more higher tech manufactured goods such as aero engines then yes that creates jobs but not many in the scheme of things. Weapons again not a large increase . Low and medium value goods such as JCB if they increase will lead just as in the case of JCB, to the building of factories nearer to the markets to take advantage of cheaper labour and cheaper shipping. . ( JCB have new factories in India and China)
Whilst I would question the morals of Lord Bamford around his tax avoidance and funding MPs I cannot attack his business ability in any way.
If he thinks it’s better to manufacture nearer the market in the middle and Far East it’s a given others will follow.
My business has a potentially very large client in Malaysia and the goods are shipped from the U.K. while the volumes are small. Once they increase there is no way we will expose ourselves to the vagaries of the logistics market on such long voyages. We will produce nearer the client using cheaper production costs and make considerably more money.
To export aero engines around the world is financially viable as the price is high and competition limited but as you come down the manufacturing food chain the distances and labour costs push the advantage to the far east and Central America in the case of the US manufacturers.
The EU has similar wage levels to the U.K. along with the same manufacturing rules so we had a more level playing field.
Does anyone on here really believe we can undercut China and India or Mexican manufacturing?
We do not have a large high tech manufacturing base and it will be decades before we do even with full government support. To ignore business growth on our doorstep is purely emotional politics not common sense.
If we did benefit from increased growth due to the reduction of trade barriers with Europe that would enable more spending on high tech developments in education, manufacturing and services to be better supported by the uk government and private industry.
Wishful thinking a plan is never successful you have to enable a plan.
For the record I believe we should as a nation snd along with other western countries have stopped the massive decades long exporting of our manufacturing base.
As a well known American economist stated the west invited China for dinner and have let them take the kitchen and cutlery home with them.
With regards to the Japan deal, are you saying we would be better off not having it?
I’m saying our balance of payments so net exports will increase considerably less than our imports. You can decide if that’s a good thing or not given the limits of cash leaving the country. I think for every pound they spend with us we give them four pounds .
Was it just as bad before when we was in the EU with the same trade deal with Japan or better.
We traded at a deficit of £1.5-2Billion . The new deal will double that deficit. What do you think?
The deal is not new. It is a roll over of the one we had as part of the EU plus the addition of digital trade. So if we left the EU or stayed in the EU this would have been the situation.
Is it better or worse for the U.K. ? This isn’t about Brexit it’s about the future of our country outside outside the RU.
And the vast majority ( 70+ deals are rollovers ) are the same so what is the point?
The customs union will help us claw back the lost trade which I believe someone on her stated at 173 times worse than the new deals . I haven’t checked that ratio.
Sorry is what better for the UK compared to what?
Opening up talks on customs union with the EU. Not and I repeat NOT rejoining the EU.
The new deals are not filling the huge gap of loses brought about by Brexit . So if we had a practical pragmatic government who aren’t controlled by the extreme right they would look at the pros and cons and realise we need to be closer to the EU whether we like it or not.
What we have isn’t working and the signs are things may be getting worse. We need to help reduce import and expiry costs to Europe. It’s hurting profits and investment.
Or do we just wait and see for fifty years as Mogg suggests? That isn’t much of a plan.
Lol no wander I did not understand I was talking about the UK, Japan deal. I was wondering why it's a bad deal now but was not before when we had it via the EU. Also if it's a bad deal that the EU negotiated on our behalf, how many of the other deals are bad that they negotiated on our behalf. I think I posted on your other thread regarding the customs union
No you’re missing my point . I wasn’t praising or criticising the existing deal. I’m trying to push this away from Brexit discussions just business. The freedom to do deals was great in theory but if they are negative compared to the existing deals why are we paying such a high price for this freedom? The loss of so much more trade with the EU is not worth the new free deals.
Customs union would bring so much more financial benefit. So why not discuss it?
I must be missing the point for sure and also not speaking about brexit
I am saying that the UK / Japan deal which you say is bad is a copy and paste of the EU / Japan deal so surely that is just as bad as its a copy. Which makes me wonder about all the other deals that the UK was part of during our membership.
The new deal is expected to increase import purchases by £1.2B and the export sales by £300m from memory. ( full fact guesses at £1.2B total) So increased turnover but definitely a negative balance. The increases are due to tech and financial increases but you are correct in saying quotas have limited other planned benefits.
Even if the deal was a full copy and pace without any loses or benefits, is it worth the losses incurred as a result of leaving the customs union? I think the answer must be a resounding no.
A pragmatic approach to dealing with the EU including the option of customs union is surely a first step to recovering those huge losses.
I think maybe this is where the confusion lies. You seem to be focused on comparing the UK / Japan deal to the changes since leaving the EU. I am simply comparing our old deal with Japan to our new deal with Japan. As they are the same then the estimates you quote must be true for both deals. Which also makes me wonder about the other deals that were done during our membership - are they just as bad.
Firstly we took part in negotiating those deals whilst party of the eu so partly our fault.
It’s irrelevant how good or bad the previous deal is in reality. The new one is proven worse or at best case even. So out of the shackles of the eu we have not made progress or received benefit. We have however lost a huge amount of trade due to the self imposed barriers and increased costs on our dealings the EU. Given the EU is by far our biggest market it has imposed the biggest increase in costs by a country mule. So the freedom to do the Japan or any other deal isn’t worth the losses.
It’s a foolish elf imposed loss or loss position to be in.
So I’m asking why ? It’s nonsense. And again a sensible government who had our interests at heart rather than a doctrine of right wing would look at making changes to help us all. "
Who was involved in the original deal is irrelevant. What matters is the conclusion they came to. In this case they came to the same conclusion as the new deal as its a copy and paste. Your estimates say it's not a good deal so therefore neither are good deals as they are the same. I am not blaming a particular side I am simply saying if the new deal is bad then by your figures so is the original deal. Again if the original deal is as bad as you say then is it possible that the other 60 or 70 other deals are also bad |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA HovisMan
over a year ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
Is he saying it's not a good deal. Or just the new deal isn't better ?
Even if it's a shit deal, we have negotiated a worse one. So why do we think being out of the EU will create better deals for us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA HovisMan
over a year ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"Again if the original deal is as bad as you say then is it possible that the other 60 or 70 other deals are also bad
I don't think he can hear you."
I suspect the feeling is mutual.
Good thing we haven't been rolling over these bad deals then ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
They could start by thinking about making life better for the people.
Stop the silly checks on the paperwork of lorries, give out free 12 month visas. Make it easy for me to fuck off and live in France. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Is he saying it's not a good deal. Or just the new deal isn't better ?
Even if it's a shit deal, we have negotiated a worse one. So why do we think being out of the EU will create better deals for us. "
Yes
Thanks |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"what would a good deal look like ?
That's easy.
Even fewer trade barriers and tariffs.
Acceptance by the EU that the UK is an "equivalent nation" meaning that our manufacturing and service standards are not below those in the EU. This would allow the UK to supply goods to the EU that meet EU standards without having to prove that those standards have been met. For example, the UK could supply electrical goods with EU plugs on them, without having to fill in vast quantities of forms to prove the point. This means that we would not need customs inspections at the borders, we would just trust each other.
I doubt that such a deal would have been possible, but that's what a good deal looks like."
You mean like being part of the European Union? So that we could have sat at the big table with the adults and been part of making the rules? And perhaps even have got better terms than most other countries? So that we actually made a profit from being leaders instead of third rate followers? Yeah it's a shame that was never a possibility... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You mean like being part of the European Union?"
The deal that I was talking about was in the context of Brexit. The whole purpose of Brexit is to escape EU protectionism and to be able to create our own trade deals with other countries.
If we're not going to be part of the club, then we don't really need a seat at the table. If we're not subject to EU rules then we don't really need to have a say in how they are formulated.
So yes *like* being in the EU, but without the paying of huge fees for membership, and with the ability to trade with whoever we want to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You mean like being part of the European Union?
The deal that I was talking about was in the context of Brexit. The whole purpose of Brexit is to escape EU protectionism and to be able to create our own trade deals with other countries.
If we're not going to be part of the club, then we don't really need a seat at the table. If we're not subject to EU rules then we don't really need to have a say in how they are formulated.
So yes *like* being in the EU, but without the paying of huge fees for membership, and with the ability to trade with whoever we want to."
If we want to trade with the EU, then we have to abide by their rules. Which we now no longer have a say in.
"The whole purpose of Brexit is to escape EU protectionism and to be able to create our own trade deals with other countries.". - is this a sarcastic comment, or is this what you really believe? There probably are people out there who actually think this.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You mean like being part of the European Union?
The deal that I was talking about was in the context of Brexit. The whole purpose of Brexit is to escape EU protectionism and to be able to create our own trade deals with other countries.
If we're not going to be part of the club, then we don't really need a seat at the table. If we're not subject to EU rules then we don't really need to have a say in how they are formulated.
So yes *like* being in the EU, but without the paying of huge fees for membership, and with the ability to trade with whoever we want to.
If we want to trade with the EU, then we have to abide by their rules. Which we now no longer have a say in.
"The whole purpose of Brexit is to escape EU protectionism and to be able to create our own trade deals with other countries.". - is this a sarcastic comment, or is this what you really believe? There probably are people out there who actually think this.
"
And if the EU wants to trade with us? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You mean like being part of the European Union?
The deal that I was talking about was in the context of Brexit. The whole purpose of Brexit is to escape EU protectionism and to be able to create our own trade deals with other countries.
If we're not going to be part of the club, then we don't really need a seat at the table. If we're not subject to EU rules then we don't really need to have a say in how they are formulated.
So yes *like* being in the EU, but without the paying of huge fees for membership, and with the ability to trade with whoever we want to.
If we want to trade with the EU, then we have to abide by their rules. Which we now no longer have a say in.
"The whole purpose of Brexit is to escape EU protectionism and to be able to create our own trade deals with other countries.". - is this a sarcastic comment, or is this what you really believe? There probably are people out there who actually think this.
And if the EU wants to trade with us? "
You mean we hold all the cards? They can't afford to do without us? They need us more than we need them?
How's that going so far?
The very fact that the EU are enforcing their rules on anything that we attempt to send to the continent, and that the UK is not enforcing anything on the stuff they send here - not enforcing our own rules that WE made - seems to indicate the exact opposite.
We ARE a third country now, because we demanded to become a third country. The EU asked us over and over again if we wanted to follow the minimum rules to be an equivalent country, and over and over again we flat out refused. We have left ourselves in a situation where anything we export to Europe is going to be fully inspected and if it doesn't meet all their requirements it will be rejected. Meanwhile they can send us any old tat, reject parts, food sweepings from the floor, safe in the knowledge that we are not bothering to inspect anything and we won't be able to send it back because we haven't bothered making sure it's got any of the quality paperwork that would enable us to send it back.
The EU has lost a bit of money on stuff they were selling into the UK, but are compensating very well by selling into lots of new markets that they have developed while we have been fucking around just trying to stand still - renegotiating hundreds of deals that we already had as part of the EU but walked away from. Meanwhile the UK is losing shitloads of money because of the delays and difficulties that WE demanded be put into place.
Yes Brexit has hurt the EU, it's a bit like they've had a leg cut off. However the UK is the leg, who have cut themselves off from the entire rest of the body. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The EU has lost a bit of money on stuff they were selling into the UK, but are compensating very well by selling into lots of new markets that they have developed while we have been fucking around just trying to stand still..."
I must have missed that.
What are these new markets that the EU has developed since the UK left? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we want to trade with the EU, then we have to abide by their rules. Which we now no longer have a say in."
I'd like to see us get a trade deal with the US. We won't have any say in how they set their rules either, but the trade deal is still worth having.
""The whole purpose of Brexit is to escape EU protectionism and to be able to create our own trade deals with other countries.". - is this a sarcastic comment, or is this what you really believe?"
Sorry, I genuinely can't work out which bit of that sentence you think might be sarcasm. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we want to trade with the EU, then we have to abide by their rules. Which we now no longer have a say in.
I'd like to see us get a trade deal with the US. We won't have any say in how they set their rules either, but the trade deal is still worth having.
"The whole purpose of Brexit is to escape EU protectionism and to be able to create our own trade deals with other countries.". - is this a sarcastic comment, or is this what you really believe?
Sorry, I genuinely can't work out which bit of that sentence you think might be sarcasm."
We'll never get a good trade deal with the US unless we drastically reduced our standards across the board. Which is of course what the US corporations who funded brexit are hoping for.
The purpose of brexit had absolutely nothing to do with escaping "EU protectionism" or creating our own trade deals.
The purposes of brexit were to create opportunities for disaster capitalists like Somerset Capital. To allow the billionaires to continue their tax avoidance schemes. To open UK up to US imports that are below EU standards, and to give US big pharma an opportunity to buy into the UK health market. Secondary aims of brexit are things like weakening the UK, so we can be picked off in trade deals internationally, and also the bonus of a divided population (much like they have in the US), which is easier to control.
These were the aims. And by and large they're all looking dead on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"You mean like being part of the European Union?
The deal that I was talking about was in the context of Brexit. The whole purpose of Brexit is to escape EU protectionism and to be able to create our own trade deals with other countries.
If we're not going to be part of the club, then we don't really need a seat at the table. If we're not subject to EU rules then we don't really need to have a say in how they are formulated.
So yes *like* being in the EU, but without the paying of huge fees for membership, and with the ability to trade with whoever we want to."
But this is my point we are worse off due to the huge increase in costs. So depending on who’s figures provided by the BoE or ONS etc you use we have a tax revenue loss on that trade of between £40-60B . That 4-6 times the cost of membership.
The increase in costs to trade customs, paperwork, delays at borders, logistic cots etc. are even higher according to the ONS .
The new deals are proving to be worthless in terms of any extra benefit so why are we not addressing the barriers costs to trade with the EU ?
You’re taking the attitude that the next deal will be great . It won’t because in reality we don’t hold the cards and we are much weaker alone.
My point is if we don’t stop the losses soon they will result in fundamental structural changes to our ability to trade and in a negative way.
I’m not suggesting joining the EU I’m suggesting joining the customs union as we will be tens of Billions better off and the NI protocol will go away. We have proved the new deals don’t work. If we manage to sign a trade deal with the US they will announce the gross figure as they did with the three deals not copy and paste so Aus, NZ, Japan . The figure announced will look huge but again if you look at the detail it will be more imports again over exports which will weaken our own industries even more.
People complained about the EU protectionist ways. Seems to me we benefited a lot more by that protectionism than being outside which so far is looking nothing but negative and making us much worse off.
There are less people in work today than before either Brexit or Covid . EU workers leaving was supposed to generate jobs for U.K. citizens. It has blatantly shown those U.K. citizens don’t want the jobs.
The vacancies are driving up wages in certain areas but not others . The BoE have sent out a warning that the lack of workers increasing costs in certain industries is having a huge effect on inflation and the loss of competitive productivity with other countries.
Wages going up for low paid is a good thing but if everyone’s wages go up then we are in trouble.
An added problem is around 450k older folks have left the workplace . Sone at normal age but many taking early retirement . So todays earners will be paying for those extra pensions too .
Tax increases due the fall in revenues to HMRC will follow as they will have to. There is no sign of tax reform so yet again the low to average paid will bare the brunt of increases. Basically if you’re on PAYE you will be paying more.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
My original post was about what a good deal would have looked like. It was describing what I thought we should have been aiming at 4 years ago. All the subsequent posts have been in that theme. I'm not attempting to argue that the actuality of Brexit is going well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People complained about the EU protectionist ways. Seems to me we benefited a lot more by that protectionism than being outside which so far is looking nothing but negative and making us much worse off."
In what way do you think the the UK benefited from the EU's protectionist measures? How are we worse off now? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"People complained about the EU protectionist ways. Seems to me we benefited a lot more by that protectionism than being outside which so far is looking nothing but negative and making us much worse off.
In what way do you think the the UK benefited from the EU's protectionist measures? How are we worse off now?"
We are protected from poor quality competition in regards to sales into the EU from outside the EU including foodstuffs and health and safety .
Consumer protections, for example flight cancellation compensation are potentially being removed which is not the case in the EU. Why is this ?
We both agree cheap imports made in cheap labour countries undermine U.K. manufacturers and cost jobs. If there’s a positive to that we tend to agree in theory but disagree in reality. Real markets don’t follow theories every time due to varied influences.
The EU gave an equal playing field for manufactures as they had to meet eu standards and that provided some protection against cheaper producing markets. Farmers which have had stricter rules in the EU so therefore can sell at the same production costs are now exposed to Australian and New Zealand meat produced by substandard cheaper methods and next will be appalling US food imports.
That sounds like cheap food indeed but at what price to the animal and our health?
American food standards if we accept them in their entirety which I’m sure we will are truly terrible .
So I think the EU protected jobs and yes they in many cases kept prices higher but that also feeds down to better wages and profits to invest.
Racing to the bottom benefits no one in this country long term. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Consumer protections, product standards, and health and safety rules aren't protectionism, that's just nations (or trading blocks) choosing what they want and what they don't.
Protectionism is all about adding tariffs, or quotas, or other artificial barriers to trade. For instance the EU charges between €90 and €180 per tonne for cereal imports. How does that sort of activity help the EU, and how is it worse for the UK being out of that system? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My original post was about what a good deal would have looked like. It was describing what I thought we should have been aiming at 4 years ago. All the subsequent posts have been in that theme. I'm not attempting to argue that the actuality of Brexit is going well."
Fair enough.
It's basically impossible to get a deal as good as when we were in the EU. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"You mean like being part of the European Union?
The deal that I was talking about was in the context of Brexit. The whole purpose of Brexit is to escape EU protectionism and to be able to create our own trade deals with other countries.
If we're not going to be part of the club, then we don't really need a seat at the table. If we're not subject to EU rules then we don't really need to have a say in how they are formulated.
So yes *like* being in the EU, but without the paying of huge fees for membership, and with the ability to trade with whoever we want to.
If we want to trade with the EU, then we have to abide by their rules. Which we now no longer have a say in.
"The whole purpose of Brexit is to escape EU protectionism and to be able to create our own trade deals with other countries.". - is this a sarcastic comment, or is this what you really believe? There probably are people out there who actually think this.
And if the EU wants to trade with us?
You mean we hold all the cards? They can't afford to do without us? They need us more than we need them?
How's that going so far?
The very fact that the EU are enforcing their rules on anything that we attempt to send to the continent, and that the UK is not enforcing anything on the stuff they send here - not enforcing our own rules that WE made - seems to indicate the exact opposite.
We ARE a third country now, because we demanded to become a third country. The EU asked us over and over again if we wanted to follow the minimum rules to be an equivalent country, and over and over again we flat out refused. We have left ourselves in a situation where anything we export to Europe is going to be fully inspected and if it doesn't meet all their requirements it will be rejected. Meanwhile they can send us any old tat, reject parts, food sweepings from the floor, safe in the knowledge that we are not bothering to inspect anything and we won't be able to send it back because we haven't bothered making sure it's got any of the quality paperwork that would enable us to send it back.
The EU has lost a bit of money on stuff they were selling into the UK, but are compensating very well by selling into lots of new markets that they have developed while we have been fucking around just trying to stand still - renegotiating hundreds of deals that we already had as part of the EU but walked away from. Meanwhile the UK is losing shitloads of money because of the delays and difficulties that WE demanded be put into place.
Yes Brexit has hurt the EU, it's a bit like they've had a leg cut off. However the UK is the leg, who have cut themselves off from the entire rest of the body."
Not found any great sites for this but as far as I see the last deal the EU done was with Vietnam pre brexit. As with most of the others the UK have replicated this deal with Vietnam. A most beautiful place I hear. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Consumer protections, product standards, and health and safety rules aren't protectionism, that's just nations (or trading blocks) choosing what they want and what they don't.
Protectionism is all about adding tariffs, or quotas, or other artificial barriers to trade. For instance the EU charges between €90 and €180 per tonne for cereal imports. How does that sort of activity help the EU, and how is it worse for the UK being out of that system?"
Protectionism is both . One is less of a bludgeoning tool with standards and other restrictions such as product content rules. I didn’t mention the tariffs but happy to agree with your statement.
We in the U.K. have self imposed barriers to trade now by having border and customs procedures with all the associated costs.
These procedures according to Boris are harming business. That’s what he clearly stated last night regarding NI. Those are virtually the same procedures for all exporters to the mainland EU and yet he remains silent on that fact. That would be admitting Brexit is a fuck up and nothing but bad news.
Anyway do the tariffs you mentioned protect EU country’s producers and manufacturers ? If they don’t why do they exist? Tariffs are by their nature protectionist. It’s why India has tariffs and quotas on imports to protect their growing economy. The tariffs along with technical barriers are why I mentioned sone good’s prices inside the EU can remain higher.
We will now be having to allow cheaper foods, general goods and perhaps products such as steel from the likes of China and the US to get trade deals agreed. In fact just as we have with meat producers such as AUS and NZ,
We have lost the leverage of the worlds largest trading group. I would think that in itself is more harmful. Unless of course you think we are now stronger?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA HovisMan
over a year ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
Brexiting to prevent FoM is protectionism in my opinion.
But I'm not going to deny that the EU does have protectionalist elements. It does. As does pretty much every other country. We still have tarrifs and quotas right?
But it also had a load of FTAs. HMG has talked in the last about the number of deals it has done. But all but 3 were roll overs and Japan was built on the EU deal.
It also has everything but arms, which I believe the UK has adopted.
Protectionism via standards is probably the area you could say the EU is longer in protectionism. And maybe there is a debate if some rules do increase standards. But isn't that intent a good thing?
But this trope the EU is (particularly) protectionsit. Don't get it. Feels like trying to find a rational argument to defend an emotional decision rather than a philosophical point of principle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
