FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Germany in recession
Germany in recession
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Telegraph reports that Germany is heading for its longest recession this century. Housebuilding has collapsed. Construction and manufacturing in the doldrums. Audi and VW cutting back on their ill-judged switch to EV’s, with VW laying off staff. Government finances in a mess. And the general expectation is that it will get worse. But the UK needs to get closer to the eurozone, so we can get some of the crumbs of this European economic miracle." You seem to be rather glad and treating it as "good news" that one of our biggest trading partners is going into recession and consequently will be less able to buy our goods. But then, if you still really believe that economically it was a good idea to leave the single market, economics is probably not one of your strong points. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Telegraph reports that Germany is heading for its longest recession this century. Housebuilding has collapsed. Construction and manufacturing in the doldrums. Audi and VW cutting back on their ill-judged switch to EV’s, with VW laying off staff. Government finances in a mess. And the general expectation is that it will get worse. But the UK needs to get closer to the eurozone, so we can get some of the crumbs of this European economic miracle. You seem to be rather glad and treating it as "good news" that one of our biggest trading partners is going into recession and consequently will be less able to buy our goods. But then, if you still really believe that economically it was a good idea to leave the single market, economics is probably not one of your strong points." I’m sure you’ll be very happy to wow us all with your academic credentials in economics….. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration will fix it. "Blame immigrants is what they need to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Telegraph reports that Germany is heading for its longest recession this century. Housebuilding has collapsed. Construction and manufacturing in the doldrums. Audi and VW cutting back on their ill-judged switch to EV’s, with VW laying off staff. Government finances in a mess. And the general expectation is that it will get worse. But the UK needs to get closer to the eurozone, so we can get some of the crumbs of this European economic miracle." Can't blame brexit, can't blame gas prices now either. I did warn people | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Telegraph reports that Germany is heading for its longest recession this century. Housebuilding has collapsed. Construction and manufacturing in the doldrums. Audi and VW cutting back on their ill-judged switch to EV’s, with VW laying off staff. Government finances in a mess. And the general expectation is that it will get worse. But the UK needs to get closer to the eurozone, so we can get some of the crumbs of this European economic miracle. You seem to be rather glad and treating it as "good news" that one of our biggest trading partners is going into recession and consequently will be less able to buy our goods. But then, if you still really believe that economically it was a good idea to leave the single market, economics is probably not one of your strong points." After the last 4 years of seeing this forum. I dont blame people taking schadenfreude in economies we were compared to struggle. Also helps dispel the 4% myth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The writing has been on the wall for a while, so not a huge surprise. What does surprise me is the lack of vision people seem to have, European countries struggling post covid and voting for far right parties and yet we still bury our heads in the sand, and before you know it so will the UK." ..indont think any one voted in is far right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The writing has been on the wall for a while, so not a huge surprise. What does surprise me is the lack of vision people seem to have, European countries struggling post covid and voting for far right parties and yet we still bury our heads in the sand, and before you know it so will the UK...indont think any one voted in is far right. " I think that is true, but compared to UK politics and the way people see the right, I think it could be seen that way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The writing has been on the wall for a while, so not a huge surprise. What does surprise me is the lack of vision people seem to have, European countries struggling post covid and voting for far right parties and yet we still bury our heads in the sand, and before you know it so will the UK." Looks like the AFD have now won a mayor election in Germany and more elections on the way. I think other parties are still opposed to working with them to keep them from power though. Troubling times for Germany with the recession as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Germany will prevail as an industrial powerhouse. It's people are industrious, conscientious and highly organised. They have been the 'engine' driving Europe recovery since WWII and will continue to be so. " Erm what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hubby has an interview with a German company that's looking to invest in the UK. What papers say isnt always accurate. Have you been to Germany in the last few years? Its doing better than us when it comes to crime, healthcare, and quality of life." Looking to invest in the UK? Surely that's a thing of the past or so we were told | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not a hope in hell of the losers of the referendum looking on the positive side for the UK " Waiting, waiting ..........  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not a hope in hell of the losers of the referendum looking on the positive side for the UK Waiting, waiting .......... "Looks like the wait goes on. In the meantime the UK and Switzerland have agreed a financial trade deal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not a hope in hell of the losers of the referendum looking on the positive side for the UK Waiting, waiting ..........
Looks like the wait goes on. In the meantime the UK and Switzerland have agreed a financial trade deal"Indeed "Nazi loot comes to the City" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not a hope in hell of the losers of the referendum looking on the positive side for the UK Waiting, waiting ..........
Looks like the wait goes on. In the meantime the UK and Switzerland have agreed a financial trade deal
Indeed "Nazi loot comes to the City""Hopefully they will throw in some toblerone too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not a hope in hell of the losers of the referendum looking on the positive side for the UK Waiting, waiting ..........
Looks like the wait goes on. In the meantime the UK and Switzerland have agreed a financial trade deal
Indeed "Nazi loot comes to the City"
Hopefully they will throw in some toblerone too "The borscht has dried up along with the mail order brides, forget the national dish the mail order part has been left out of the deal from what I can see.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The writing has been on the wall for a while, so not a huge surprise. What does surprise me is the lack of vision people seem to have, European countries struggling post covid and voting for far right parties and yet we still bury our heads in the sand, and before you know it so will the UK...indont think any one voted in is far right. " The German government is a coalition of SDP (think Labour) FDP (think Lib Dem) and Greens and they are quickly becoming a national embarrassment. The centre right CDU/CSU and right wing AFD are not part of the government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Telegraph reports that Germany is heading for its longest recession this century. Housebuilding has collapsed. Construction and manufacturing in the doldrums. Audi and VW cutting back on their ill-judged switch to EV’s, with VW laying off staff. Government finances in a mess. And the general expectation is that it will get worse. But the UK needs to get closer to the eurozone, so we can get some of the crumbs of this European economic miracle." Nobody has ever suggested that membership of the EU or adopting the Euro currency means immunity from economic downturn. The fact that member states can suffer recession or indeed growth independently of the fates of the larger trading bloc proves that the "freedom" that Brexit supposedly grants us was there all along. People can and will continue to point at every skinned knee and dropped ice-cream in the other side of the Channel as evidence that "we" were right to walk away from 50 years of largely successful economic partnerships, but the fact remains that to prove it was a good idea you have to at some point demonstrate some kind of, however minuscule, upside. And no, wine by the pint doesn't count. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Telegraph reports that Germany is heading for its longest recession this century. Housebuilding has collapsed. Construction and manufacturing in the doldrums. Audi and VW cutting back on their ill-judged switch to EV’s, with VW laying off staff. Government finances in a mess. And the general expectation is that it will get worse. But the UK needs to get closer to the eurozone, so we can get some of the crumbs of this European economic miracle. Nobody has ever suggested that membership of the EU or adopting the Euro currency means immunity from economic downturn. The fact that member states can suffer recession or indeed growth independently of the fates of the larger trading bloc proves that the "freedom" that Brexit supposedly grants us was there all along. People can and will continue to point at every skinned knee and dropped ice-cream in the other side of the Channel as evidence that "we" were right to walk away from 50 years of largely successful economic partnerships, but the fact remains that to prove it was a good idea you have to at some point demonstrate some kind of, however minuscule, upside. And no, wine by the pint doesn't count." Erm What? I think you need to take a look at the economies again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Erm What? I think you need to take a look at the economies again." Please explain what you're seeing that I'm not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Erm What? I think you need to take a look at the economies again. Please explain what you're seeing that I'm not." They don't. One of the larger countries of France uk and Germany usually pulls up or down the other countries. Their economies are intertwined with the fate of France Italy and Germany. They aren't independent of one a other given that any affect kf Germany and euro devaluation. Affect the other countries. Any printing of the Euro affects inflation across the eurozone countries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Erm What? I think you need to take a look at the economies again. Please explain what you're seeing that I'm not. They don't. One of the larger countries of France uk and Germany usually pulls up or down the other countries. Their economies are intertwined with the fate of France Italy and Germany. They aren't independent of one a other given that any affect kf Germany and euro devaluation. Affect the other countries. Any printing of the Euro affects inflation across the eurozone countries. " Did I say they were completely separate? No. A country's economy will be affected by any country it's in a trading partnership with. Any internationally trading country will be affected by local and global trends. The fates of larger countries affect all other countries. And that's a massive oversimplification of how the Eurozone works. First of all minting is tightly controlled to address precisely that issue. Less powerful economies benefit more than more powerful ones from currency restriction, because their weaker economies and less influential national banks make them more prone to inflation spikes. Secondly two Euro trading partners' economies will have LESS effect on each other precisely because exchange rate, tariffs and duty are factored out of their trading. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Erm What? I think you need to take a look at the economies again. Please explain what you're seeing that I'm not. They don't. One of the larger countries of France uk and Germany usually pulls up or down the other countries. Their economies are intertwined with the fate of France Italy and Germany. They aren't independent of one a other given that any affect kf Germany and euro devaluation. Affect the other countries. Any printing of the Euro affects inflation across the eurozone countries. Did I say they were completely separate? No. A country's economy will be affected by any country it's in a trading partnership with. Any internationally trading country will be affected by local and global trends. The fates of larger countries affect all other countries. And that's a massive oversimplification of how the Eurozone works. First of all minting is tightly controlled to address precisely that issue. Less powerful economies benefit more than more powerful ones from currency restriction, because their weaker economies and less influential national banks make them more prone to inflation spikes. Secondly two Euro trading partners' economies will have LESS effect on each other precisely because exchange rate, tariffs and duty are factored out of their trading." You said this The fact that member states can suffer recession or indeed growth independently of the fates of the larger trading bloc proves that the "freedom" that Brexit supposedly grants us was there all along. They are intertwined economies. Via the Euro, interest rates monetary policy they were all affected by the ecb decisions. And they are all having their economies pulled down by Germany Italy and France. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Did I say they were completely separate? No. A country's economy will be affected by any country it's in a trading partnership with. Any internationally trading country will be affected by local and global trends. You said this The fact that member states can suffer recession or indeed growth independently of the fates of the larger trading bloc proves that the "freedom" that Brexit supposedly grants us was there all along. They are intertwined economies. Via the Euro, interest rates monetary policy they were all affected by the ecb decisions. And they are all having their economies pulled down by Germany Italy and France. " ... once again: The economies of any two countries that have a significant trading partnership are to an extent "intertwined" and so will affect each other. In or out of the EU, our trading relationship with e.g. France is huge and complicated and therefore our economies are symbiotic, as is our economy with those of all our trading partners. Ironically if we were still in the EU and we had the same currency our trading with France would be immeasurably easier and both economies would benefit. But the currency here is a red herring. It is not because they are both in the Eurozone that German's recession will hurt e.g. Holland's economy. It is because they are each other's suppliers and customers. But to return to my original point, Germany's recession was not caused by its EU membership or by its currency, just as its latter economic prosperity was not caused by its EU membership, or by its currency, and when it emerges from its recession it will not be because the EU decided it would. The same used to apply to us - but it will be harder for us to emerge from ours because we decided to end our partnership with the largest trading bloc in the world and renegotiate all our international trade agreements on an individual - and far less beneficial - basis. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Did I say they were completely separate? No. A country's economy will be affected by any country it's in a trading partnership with. Any internationally trading country will be affected by local and global trends. You said this The fact that member states can suffer recession or indeed growth independently of the fates of the larger trading bloc proves that the "freedom" that Brexit supposedly grants us was there all along. They are intertwined economies. Via the Euro, interest rates monetary policy they were all affected by the ecb decisions. And they are all having their economies pulled down by Germany Italy and France. ... once again: The economies of any two countries that have a significant trading partnership are to an extent "intertwined" and so will affect each other. In or out of the EU, our trading relationship with e.g. France is huge and complicated and therefore our economies are symbiotic, as is our economy with those of all our trading partners. Ironically if we were still in the EU and we had the same currency our trading with France would be immeasurably easier and both economies would benefit. But the currency here is a red herring. It is not because they are both in the Eurozone that German's recession will hurt e.g. Holland's economy. It is because they are each other's suppliers and customers. But to return to my original point, Germany's recession was not caused by its EU membership or by its currency, just as its latter economic prosperity was not caused by its EU membership, or by its currency, and when it emerges from its recession it will not be because the EU decided it would. The same used to apply to us - but it will be harder for us to emerge from ours because we decided to end our partnership with the largest trading bloc in the world and renegotiate all our international trade agreements on an individual - and far less beneficial - basis." Agreed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry but no. They jave bo control over their quantitative easing/ tightening. No control over borrowing costs bo control over interest rates nor their credit ratings. They are all merged. You seem to have been asleep at the wheel for Italy last decade of low growth due to the e.u refusing to budget on spending as a % of gdp growth as well at monetary and fiscal.policies favourig gemrany and France over stagnating Italy." You're seeing causation where there is barely a correlation. You're laying Italy's poor growth at the feet of centralised currency policy and claiming Germany and France benefit from the same, which to be fair is a well-rehearsed euroskeptic argument. The UK's growth has been depressed for roughly the same amount of time and our interest rate is currently higher than the ECB's, but we never joined the single currency. Is it not possible that the Euro and the EU are in fact just fiscal mechanisms that have upsides and downsides largely depending on the unique and complex economic situations of each member state, but which are routinely trotted out as scapegoats for basically any kind of economic problem (real or not) by journalists and politicians who are ideologically committed to destroying the European project? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... we decided to end our partnership with the largest trading bloc in the world and renegotiate all our international trade agreements on an individual - and far less beneficial - basis." In what way are the new non-EU trade deals less beneficial than before? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... we decided to end our partnership with the largest trading bloc in the world and renegotiate all our international trade agreements on an individual - and far less beneficial - basis. In what way are the new non-EU trade deals less beneficial than before?" In much the same way as smaller businesses form buying groups to increase their commercial clout. The chief benefits of having the EU collectively negotiate international trade deals are firstly the diversity of commerce on offer, and secondly the total size of the market. The EU has massively more buying power than the UK alone, which means lower prices, lower tariffs and priority of supply amongst other benefits that the UK doesn't have access to because on its own it's a far less attractive trading opportunity. So while it is true that the UK is now free to negotiate its own trade deals independently from the EU, it is negotiating from a far weaker position. Do you remember Obama saying in 2015/16 that if we voted to leave we would go to the back of the queue? Yeah, that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... we decided to end our partnership with the largest trading bloc in the world and renegotiate all our international trade agreements on an individual - and far less beneficial - basis." "In what way are the new non-EU trade deals less beneficial than before?" "In much the same way as smaller businesses form buying groups to increase their commercial clout. The chief benefits of having the EU collectively negotiate international trade deals are firstly the diversity of commerce on offer, and secondly the total size of the market. The EU has massively more buying power than the UK alone, which means lower prices, lower tariffs and priority of supply amongst other benefits that the UK doesn't have access to because on its own it's a far less attractive trading opportunity. So while it is true that the UK is now free to negotiate its own trade deals independently from the EU, it is negotiating from a far weaker position. Do you remember Obama saying in 2015/16 that if we voted to leave we would go to the back of the queue? Yeah, that." You've explained why you believe that the UK is now in a worse negotiating position, but that's not what I asked. My question was "In what way are the new non-EU trade deals less beneficial than before?". Can you give us an example of a new non-EU trade deal that is on less beneficial terms than we had before? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've explained why you believe that the UK is now in a worse negotiating position, but that's not what I asked. My question was "In what way are the new non-EU trade deals less beneficial than before?". Can you give us an example of a new non-EU trade deal that is on less beneficial terms than we had before?" So, of the 38 trade deals currently in effect between the UK and other territories, 33 are "continuity agreements" which more or less commit to the same terms that the EU negotiated for us (but will benefit us less for the above-stated reasons). The other five are technically new. The CPTTP for example, much-vaunted as a huge coup for post-Brexit trade negotiations is a deal between the UK and what remains of the Trans-Pacific Partnership now the USA has bailed on it. Firstly of the 13 members the UK already had continuity trade deals with 9, so only Brunei and Malaysia are new partners. Secondly those partners being on the other side of the planet, we don't do a massive amount of trade with them, and a lot of it is problematic (e.g. environmentally) in ways not addressed by the deal. Another example would be the Australia deal, to which you might say that the EU doesn't even have one. However because we rushed to conclude ours, we gave away huge concessions such as complete liberalisation of beef and sheep, in exchange for basically nothing. The EU will not likely make such a concession. And again, they're on the other side of the planet. The UK-US trade deal is another that is technically further along than an EU-US trade deal, however the existing deal covers a handful of goods and requires us to negotiate on a per-state basis for the remaining majority of trade, which is unlikely to ever properly conclude. To be fair is it also unlikely the EU will enjoy a comprehensive US trade deal until they elect a real globalist President, but when they do it will be an actual landmark for western tariff relaxation, which we will not see the benefits from. As you can see it's difficult to put in easy headline terms why Brexit has put us at a disadvantage, especially when the pro side are willing to trumpet nonsense about freedom and sovereignty and pretend that all these new deals promise untold riches, but ultimately that contrast between the flag-waving advertising and the cold, boring economic realities is why the referendum went the way it did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've explained why you believe that the UK is now in a worse negotiating position, but that's not what I asked. My question was "In what way are the new non-EU trade deals less beneficial than before?". Can you give us an example of a new non-EU trade deal that is on less beneficial terms than we had before? So, of the 38 trade deals currently in effect between the UK and other territories, 33 are "continuity agreements" which more or less commit to the same terms that the EU negotiated for us (but will benefit us less for the above-stated reasons). The other five are technically new. The CPTTP for example, much-vaunted as a huge coup for post-Brexit trade negotiations is a deal between the UK and what remains of the Trans-Pacific Partnership now the USA has bailed on it. Firstly of the 13 members the UK already had continuity trade deals with 9, so only Brunei and Malaysia are new partners. Secondly those partners being on the other side of the planet, we don't do a massive amount of trade with them, and a lot of it is problematic (e.g. environmentally) in ways not addressed by the deal. Another example would be the Australia deal, to which you might say that the EU doesn't even have one. However because we rushed to conclude ours, we gave away huge concessions such as complete liberalisation of beef and sheep, in exchange for basically nothing. The EU will not likely make such a concession. And again, they're on the other side of the planet. The UK-US trade deal is another that is technically further along than an EU-US trade deal, however the existing deal covers a handful of goods and requires us to negotiate on a per-state basis for the remaining majority of trade, which is unlikely to ever properly conclude. To be fair is it also unlikely the EU will enjoy a comprehensive US trade deal until they elect a real globalist President, but when they do it will be an actual landmark for western tariff relaxation, which we will not see the benefits from. As you can see it's difficult to put in easy headline terms why Brexit has put us at a disadvantage, especially when the pro side are willing to trumpet nonsense about freedom and sovereignty and pretend that all these new deals promise untold riches, but ultimately that contrast between the flag-waving advertising and the cold, boring economic realities is why the referendum went the way it did." I can't work out if this answers the question that Mr Discretion asked. I think he was asking for an example of a non EU trade deal that is less beneficial than what we had previously. So I was expecting an answer to say something like the new UK negotiated trade deal with country X gives us less benefit compared to the previous deal because..... . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've explained why you believe that the UK is now in a worse negotiating position, but that's not what I asked. My question was "In what way are the new non-EU trade deals less beneficial than before?". Can you give us an example of a new non-EU trade deal that is on less beneficial terms than we had before? So, of the 38 trade deals currently in effect between the UK and other territories, 33 are "continuity agreements" which more or less commit to the same terms that the EU negotiated for us (but will benefit us less for the above-stated reasons). The other five are technically new. The CPTTP for example, much-vaunted as a huge coup for post-Brexit trade negotiations is a deal between the UK and what remains of the Trans-Pacific Partnership now the USA has bailed on it. Firstly of the 13 members the UK already had continuity trade deals with 9, so only Brunei and Malaysia are new partners. Secondly those partners being on the other side of the planet, we don't do a massive amount of trade with them, and a lot of it is problematic (e.g. environmentally) in ways not addressed by the deal. Another example would be the Australia deal, to which you might say that the EU doesn't even have one. However because we rushed to conclude ours, we gave away huge concessions such as complete liberalisation of beef and sheep, in exchange for basically nothing. The EU will not likely make such a concession. And again, they're on the other side of the planet. The UK-US trade deal is another that is technically further along than an EU-US trade deal, however the existing deal covers a handful of goods and requires us to negotiate on a per-state basis for the remaining majority of trade, which is unlikely to ever properly conclude. To be fair is it also unlikely the EU will enjoy a comprehensive US trade deal until they elect a real globalist President, but when they do it will be an actual landmark for western tariff relaxation, which we will not see the benefits from. As you can see it's difficult to put in easy headline terms why Brexit has put us at a disadvantage, especially when the pro side are willing to trumpet nonsense about freedom and sovereignty and pretend that all these new deals promise untold riches, but ultimately that contrast between the flag-waving advertising and the cold, boring economic realities is why the referendum went the way it did. I can't work out if this answers the question that Mr Discretion asked. I think he was asking for an example of a non EU trade deal that is less beneficial than what we had previously. So I was expecting an answer to say something like the new UK negotiated trade deal with country X gives us less benefit compared to the previous deal because..... . " Again most of our current trade deals are continuity agreements which grant the same terms as the deal we had with those territories when we were still in the EU. Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. The other trade deals are with territories that did not have finalised agreements with the EU. We have decided, through Brexit, to negotiate those on our own instead of as part of the EU trading bloc. The downsides there are those I've listed above. Any potential upsides to the new deals rely on the assumption that the deal the EU would have concluded would be somehow unfavourable to the UK, which is unlikely as the EU deals were broadly, and often very favourable to the UK. We did a LOT of international business thanks to our EU membership. Although the continuity deals are less advantageous to us now than they were pre-Brexit, it would be unwise for us to renegotiate them because it's likely we would come off even worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Is it not possible that the Euro and the EU are in fact just fiscal mechanisms?” The euro isn’t even that - it’s more simple! Europe-wide budgets, contracts and purchases were only practicable because they were established in an accounting unit rather than a currency which a government might otherwise play about with - devalue to slow imports, for example. The Exchange Rate Mechanism - ERM, which the UK dropped out of in 1992 - ensured fluctuations of “real” currencies got less and less, the rates published each month by the Commission hardly changing from the month before. The transition from the European Unit of Account (EUA) to the European Currency Unit (ECU) to the euro was (relatively) painless, the latter of course becoming itself a “real” currency with notes and coins and no longer a virtual one. The same process (stabilisation of a national currency and then linking it the euro) continues; currently, ERM II includes the lev (Bulgaria) and kroner (Denmark). Croatia joined ERM II in 2020 and has already dropped its kuna to adopt the euro. Poland is biding its time with the zloty, a bargaining chip to be played when it decides it’s time to become one of the Big Three. The euro is irrelevant to any eurozone country’s success or failure…" Yes, well put. Completely agree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry but no. They jave bo control over their quantitative easing/ tightening. No control over borrowing costs bo control over interest rates nor their credit ratings. They are all merged. You seem to have been asleep at the wheel for Italy last decade of low growth due to the e.u refusing to budget on spending as a % of gdp growth as well at monetary and fiscal.policies favourig gemrany and France over stagnating Italy. You're seeing causation where there is barely a correlation. You're laying Italy's poor growth at the feet of centralised currency policy and claiming Germany and France benefit from the same, which to be fair is a well-rehearsed euroskeptic argument. The UK's growth has been depressed for roughly the same amount of time and our interest rate is currently higher than the ECB's, but we never joined the single currency. Is it not possible that the Euro and the EU are in fact just fiscal mechanisms that have upsides and downsides largely depending on the unique and complex economic situations of each member state, but which are routinely trotted out as scapegoats for basically any kind of economic problem (real or not) by journalists and politicians who are ideologically committed to destroying the European project?" It's well rehearsed because it is true. Just as I Greece, Spain, Portugal. They are all at the mercy of the big 2 preference. Its why France didn't have to obey the rules. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... we decided to end our partnership with the largest trading bloc in the world and renegotiate all our international trade agreements on an individual - and far less beneficial - basis. In what way are the new non-EU trade deals less beneficial than before?" In what way is the e.u the largest trading bloc in the world? We rolled over the deals. They can only be improved. Not a direct reply to you Mr discetion but the buffoon who wrote this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... we decided to end our partnership with the largest trading bloc in the world and renegotiate all our international trade agreements on an individual - and far less beneficial - basis. In what way are the new non-EU trade deals less beneficial than before? In much the same way as smaller businesses form buying groups to increase their commercial clout. The chief benefits of having the EU collectively negotiate international trade deals are firstly the diversity of commerce on offer, and secondly the total size of the market. The EU has massively more buying power than the UK alone, which means lower prices, lower tariffs and priority of supply amongst other benefits that the UK doesn't have access to because on its own it's a far less attractive trading opportunity. So while it is true that the UK is now free to negotiate its own trade deals independently from the EU, it is negotiating from a far weaker position. Do you remember Obama saying in 2015/16 that if we voted to leave we would go to the back of the queue? Yeah, that." Most of these deals are 10+ years old. Before the services sector became a big thing. Services don't feature in the e.u agreements. As the e.u focuses on trade of good for Germany France and Italy. Ignoring the uk financial/insurance sectors for example. The deals weren't beneficial.tomthe uk economy which is services based more and more So far the uk has improved on a few kf these deals Japan and South Korea. Obama is not in office. The e.u still hasn't signed mercosur 20+ years on from negotiating. I do believe Australia has gone back to the drawing board. The uk is negotiating from a strong position. As we can focus on sector we want to improve. E.g services access. Not car exports. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've explained why you believe that the UK is now in a worse negotiating position, but that's not what I asked. My question was "In what way are the new non-EU trade deals less beneficial than before?". Can you give us an example of a new non-EU trade deal that is on less beneficial terms than we had before? So, of the 38 trade deals currently in effect between the UK and other territories, 33 are "continuity agreements" which more or less commit to the same terms that the EU negotiated for us (but will benefit us less for the above-stated reasons). The other five are technically new. The CPTTP for example, much-vaunted as a huge coup for post-Brexit trade negotiations is a deal between the UK and what remains of the Trans-Pacific Partnership now the USA has bailed on it. Firstly of the 13 members the UK already had continuity trade deals with 9, so only Brunei and Malaysia are new partners. Secondly those partners being on the other side of the planet, we don't do a massive amount of trade with them, and a lot of it is problematic (e.g. environmentally) in ways not addressed by the deal. Another example would be the Australia deal, to which you might say that the EU doesn't even have one. However because we rushed to conclude ours, we gave away huge concessions such as complete liberalisation of beef and sheep, in exchange for basically nothing. The EU will not likely make such a concession. And again, they're on the other side of the planet. The UK-US trade deal is another that is technically further along than an EU-US trade deal, however the existing deal covers a handful of goods and requires us to negotiate on a per-state basis for the remaining majority of trade, which is unlikely to ever properly conclude. To be fair is it also unlikely the EU will enjoy a comprehensive US trade deal until they elect a real globalist President, but when they do it will be an actual landmark for western tariff relaxation, which we will not see the benefits from. As you can see it's difficult to put in easy headline terms why Brexit has put us at a disadvantage, especially when the pro side are willing to trumpet nonsense about freedom and sovereignty and pretend that all these new deals promise untold riches, but ultimately that contrast between the flag-waving advertising and the cold, boring economic realities is why the referendum went the way it did. I can't work out if this answers the question that Mr Discretion asked. I think he was asking for an example of a non EU trade deal that is less beneficial than what we had previously. So I was expecting an answer to say something like the new UK negotiated trade deal with country X gives us less benefit compared to the previous deal because..... . " No it does t. Not even close. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Is it not possible that the Euro and the EU are in fact just fiscal mechanisms?” The euro isn’t even that - it’s more simple! Europe-wide budgets, contracts and purchases were only practicable because they were established in an accounting unit rather than a currency which a government might otherwise play about with - devalue to slow imports, for example. The Exchange Rate Mechanism - ERM, which the UK dropped out of in 1992 - ensured fluctuations of “real” currencies got less and less, the rates published each month by the Commission hardly changing from the month before. The transition from the European Unit of Account (EUA) to the European Currency Unit (ECU) to the euro was (relatively) painless, the latter of course becoming itself a “real” currency with notes and coins and no longer a virtual one. The same process (stabilisation of a national currency and then linking it the euro) continues; currently, ERM II includes the lev (Bulgaria) and kroner (Denmark). Croatia joined ERM II in 2020 and has already dropped its kuna to adopt the euro. Poland is biding its time with the zloty, a bargaining chip to be played when it decides it’s time to become one of the Big Three. The euro is irrelevant to any eurozone country’s success or failure…" That's a lot of hot air for. I dont know how a central bank works. You can't improve exports or imports. You jave bo control over your currency. See Japan as an example. You can't improve exports to a country by devaluing your national currency...because.dum dum dum...you don't control that currency. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. This is the 3rd time you've stated this without anything backing it up. Please can you actually give clarity to why you mistakenly believe this " Nah, I'm done. You can lead a horse to water, etc. Enjoy your sunlit uplands. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. This is the 3rd time you've stated this without anything backing it up. Please can you actually give clarity to why you mistakenly believe this Nah, I'm done. You can lead a horse to water, etc. Enjoy your sunlit uplands." I've been watching this.... Morley often rubs people up the wrong way, that is a fair challenge though, its not surprising you're refusing to add clarity to your conclusions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. This is the 3rd time you've stated this without anything backing it up. Please can you actually give clarity to why you mistakenly believe this Nah, I'm done. You can lead a horse to water, etc. Enjoy your sunlit uplands." You can't explain it. Because it's not true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. This is the 3rd time you've stated this without anything backing it up. Please can you actually give clarity to why you mistakenly believe this Nah, I'm done. You can lead a horse to water, etc. Enjoy your sunlit uplands. I've been watching this.... Morley often rubs people up the wrong way, that is a fair challenge though, its not surprising you're refusing to add clarity to your conclusions. " In my experience you can hand a leaver the complete published conclusions of the OBR on Brexit's total and abject failure to yield a single economic benefit, current or projected, and they'll still sit there insisting you come up with more explanations. I've given a broad enough explanation of why trading outside of the bloc is disadvantageous to the UK as compared to inside, and cited a number of good examples. Anyone arguing in good faith would at least refute the points I made with examples of thrir own. People arguing in bad faith pretend they still haven't heard an explanation. Ultimately, whether or not Wetherspoons customers are prepared to hear about the real-terms economic sanctions the UK has inflicted on itself, they will have to endure them like anyone else. Blue passports though, eh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. This is the 3rd time you've stated this without anything backing it up. Please can you actually give clarity to why you mistakenly believe this Nah, I'm done. You can lead a horse to water, etc. Enjoy your sunlit uplands. You can't explain it. Because it's not true." Lol no yeah you're right it's all going BRILLIANTLY, you can't look out the window without seeing more evidence of what a spectacular economic boost Brexit has turned out to be. I mean, just look at all those pints of wine! Imagine how much money we'll have once we cash in all that extra sovereignty! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. This is the 3rd time you've stated this without anything backing it up. Please can you actually give clarity to why you mistakenly believe this Nah, I'm done. You can lead a horse to water, etc. Enjoy your sunlit uplands. I've been watching this.... Morley often rubs people up the wrong way, that is a fair challenge though, its not surprising you're refusing to add clarity to your conclusions. In my experience you can hand a leaver the complete published conclusions of the OBR on Brexit's total and abject failure to yield a single economic benefit, current or projected, and they'll still sit there insisting you come up with more explanations. I've given a broad enough explanation of why trading outside of the bloc is disadvantageous to the UK as compared to inside, and cited a number of good examples. Anyone arguing in good faith would at least refute the points I made with examples of thrir own. People arguing in bad faith pretend they still haven't heard an explanation. Ultimately, whether or not Wetherspoons customers are prepared to hear about the real-terms economic sanctions the UK has inflicted on itself, they will have to endure them like anyone else. Blue passports though, eh?" You've given no brand emanation. You made a claim you fsil to substantiate time and again You've drawn impossible conclusions about roll over deal being made worse. I have argued in good faith I have told you what Australia and mz fta entail vs traditional e.u ftas. I have discussed the ahe of e.u ftas prior to the quaternary sector developing. You have been infor.ed about the market access of e.u to uk meat vs oz/nz You were told about the 300mm extra already in exports to Australia vs last year. You have offered nothing back. But get back to your bigotry about wetherspoons customers. The uk will continue to grow quicker and stronger than the other g7 e.u countries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. This is the 3rd time you've stated this without anything backing it up. Please can you actually give clarity to why you mistakenly believe this Nah, I'm done. You can lead a horse to water, etc. Enjoy your sunlit uplands. You can't explain it. Because it's not true. Lol no yeah you're right it's all going BRILLIANTLY, you can't look out the window without seeing more evidence of what a spectacular economic boost Brexit has turned out to be. I mean, just look at all those pints of wine! Imagine how much money we'll have once we cash in all that extra sovereignty!" We've literally exported an extra 300mn of good to Australia up to October  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've explained why you believe that the UK is now in a worse negotiating position, but that's not what I asked. My question was "In what way are the new non-EU trade deals less beneficial than before?". Can you give us an example of a new non-EU trade deal that is on less beneficial terms than we had before? So, of the 38 trade deals currently in effect between the UK and other territories, 33 are "continuity agreements" which more or less commit to the same terms that the EU negotiated for us (but will benefit us less for the above-stated reasons). The other five are technically new. The CPTTP for example, much-vaunted as a huge coup for post-Brexit trade negotiations is a deal between the UK and what remains of the Trans-Pacific Partnership now the USA has bailed on it. Firstly of the 13 members the UK already had continuity trade deals with 9, so only Brunei and Malaysia are new partners. Secondly those partners being on the other side of the planet, we don't do a massive amount of trade with them, and a lot of it is problematic (e.g. environmentally) in ways not addressed by the deal. Another example would be the Australia deal, to which you might say that the EU doesn't even have one. However because we rushed to conclude ours, we gave away huge concessions such as complete liberalisation of beef and sheep, in exchange for basically nothing. The EU will not likely make such a concession. And again, they're on the other side of the planet. The UK-US trade deal is another that is technically further along than an EU-US trade deal, however the existing deal covers a handful of goods and requires us to negotiate on a per-state basis for the remaining majority of trade, which is unlikely to ever properly conclude. To be fair is it also unlikely the EU will enjoy a comprehensive US trade deal until they elect a real globalist President, but when they do it will be an actual landmark for western tariff relaxation, which we will not see the benefits from. As you can see it's difficult to put in easy headline terms why Brexit has put us at a disadvantage, especially when the pro side are willing to trumpet nonsense about freedom and sovereignty and pretend that all these new deals promise untold riches, but ultimately that contrast between the flag-waving advertising and the cold, boring economic realities is why the referendum went the way it did. I can't work out if this answers the question that Mr Discretion asked. I think he was asking for an example of a non EU trade deal that is less beneficial than what we had previously. So I was expecting an answer to say something like the new UK negotiated trade deal with country X gives us less benefit compared to the previous deal because..... . Again most of our current trade deals are continuity agreements which grant the same terms as the deal we had with those territories when we were still in the EU. Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. The other trade deals are with territories that did not have finalised agreements with the EU. We have decided, through Brexit, to negotiate those on our own instead of as part of the EU trading bloc. The downsides there are those I've listed above. Any potential upsides to the new deals rely on the assumption that the deal the EU would have concluded would be somehow unfavourable to the UK, which is unlikely as the EU deals were broadly, and often very favourable to the UK. We did a LOT of international business thanks to our EU membership. Although the continuity deals are less advantageous to us now than they were pre-Brexit, it would be unwise for us to renegotiate them because it's likely we would come off even worse." This is where I am getting muddled. It is said here and elsewhere that if the UK left the EU it would not be able to do the same deals it enjoyed while an EU member due to being much smaller as a single country. I understand that theory. What I don't understand is that the reality is that the UK struck identical deals from this weaker position which is opposite to the theory. The next thing I'm struggling with is although the deals are identical we are now told it is less advantageous as it used to be because we are no longer in the EU. What is the reason for this reduction when presumably the actual text is identical, may I ask. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. This is the 3rd time you've stated this without anything backing it up. Please can you actually give clarity to why you mistakenly believe this Nah, I'm done. You can lead a horse to water, etc. Enjoy your sunlit uplands. I've been watching this.... Morley often rubs people up the wrong way, that is a fair challenge though, its not surprising you're refusing to add clarity to your conclusions. In my experience you can hand a leaver the complete published conclusions of the OBR on Brexit's total and abject failure to yield a single economic benefit, current or projected, and they'll still sit there insisting you come up with more explanations. I've given a broad enough explanation of why trading outside of the bloc is disadvantageous to the UK as compared to inside, and cited a number of good examples. Anyone arguing in good faith would at least refute the points I made with examples of thrir own. People arguing in bad faith pretend they still haven't heard an explanation. Ultimately, whether or not Wetherspoons customers are prepared to hear about the real-terms economic sanctions the UK has inflicted on itself, they will have to endure them like anyone else. Blue passports though, eh?" And when called on it you resort to attempt to insult? That's the crux of your problems, not others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've explained why you believe that the UK is now in a worse negotiating position, but that's not what I asked. My question was "In what way are the new non-EU trade deals less beneficial than before?". Can you give us an example of a new non-EU trade deal that is on less beneficial terms than we had before? So, of the 38 trade deals currently in effect between the UK and other territories, 33 are "continuity agreements" which more or less commit to the same terms that the EU negotiated for us (but will benefit us less for the above-stated reasons). The other five are technically new. The CPTTP for example, much-vaunted as a huge coup for post-Brexit trade negotiations is a deal between the UK and what remains of the Trans-Pacific Partnership now the USA has bailed on it. Firstly of the 13 members the UK already had continuity trade deals with 9, so only Brunei and Malaysia are new partners. Secondly those partners being on the other side of the planet, we don't do a massive amount of trade with them, and a lot of it is problematic (e.g. environmentally) in ways not addressed by the deal. Another example would be the Australia deal, to which you might say that the EU doesn't even have one. However because we rushed to conclude ours, we gave away huge concessions such as complete liberalisation of beef and sheep, in exchange for basically nothing. The EU will not likely make such a concession. And again, they're on the other side of the planet. The UK-US trade deal is another that is technically further along than an EU-US trade deal, however the existing deal covers a handful of goods and requires us to negotiate on a per-state basis for the remaining majority of trade, which is unlikely to ever properly conclude. To be fair is it also unlikely the EU will enjoy a comprehensive US trade deal until they elect a real globalist President, but when they do it will be an actual landmark for western tariff relaxation, which we will not see the benefits from. As you can see it's difficult to put in easy headline terms why Brexit has put us at a disadvantage, especially when the pro side are willing to trumpet nonsense about freedom and sovereignty and pretend that all these new deals promise untold riches, but ultimately that contrast between the flag-waving advertising and the cold, boring economic realities is why the referendum went the way it did. I can't work out if this answers the question that Mr Discretion asked. I think he was asking for an example of a non EU trade deal that is less beneficial than what we had previously. So I was expecting an answer to say something like the new UK negotiated trade deal with country X gives us less benefit compared to the previous deal because..... . Again most of our current trade deals are continuity agreements which grant the same terms as the deal we had with those territories when we were still in the EU. Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. The other trade deals are with territories that did not have finalised agreements with the EU. We have decided, through Brexit, to negotiate those on our own instead of as part of the EU trading bloc. The downsides there are those I've listed above. Any potential upsides to the new deals rely on the assumption that the deal the EU would have concluded would be somehow unfavourable to the UK, which is unlikely as the EU deals were broadly, and often very favourable to the UK. We did a LOT of international business thanks to our EU membership. Although the continuity deals are less advantageous to us now than they were pre-Brexit, it would be unwise for us to renegotiate them because it's likely we would come off even worse. This is where I am getting muddled. It is said here and elsewhere that if the UK left the EU it would not be able to do the same deals it enjoyed while an EU member due to being much smaller as a single country. I understand that theory. What I don't understand is that the reality is that the UK struck identical deals from this weaker position which is opposite to the theory. The next thing I'm struggling with is although the deals are identical we are now told it is less advantageous as it used to be because we are no longer in the EU. What is the reason for this reduction when presumably the actual text is identical, may I ask." They can't answer. They refuse to. It's truly amazing that a much smaller country than 27 combined. Was able to rollover the exact same identical deals even though we only had a much smaller bargaining power. But bow apparently we are going to negotiate to make them worse  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. This is the 3rd time you've stated this without anything backing it up. Please can you actually give clarity to why you mistakenly believe this Nah, I'm done. You can lead a horse to water, etc. Enjoy your sunlit uplands. You can't explain it. Because it's not true. Lol no yeah you're right it's all going BRILLIANTLY, you can't look out the window without seeing more evidence of what a spectacular economic boost Brexit has turned out to be. I mean, just look at all those pints of wine! Imagine how much money we'll have once we cash in all that extra sovereignty! We've literally exported an extra 300mn of good to Australia up to October "Bloomberg estimates Brexit will cost us £100Bn a year. But I guess making .3% back on that one trade deal is a start. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. This is the 3rd time you've stated this without anything backing it up. Please can you actually give clarity to why you mistakenly believe this Nah, I'm done. You can lead a horse to water, etc. Enjoy your sunlit uplands. You can't explain it. Because it's not true. Lol no yeah you're right it's all going BRILLIANTLY, you can't look out the window without seeing more evidence of what a spectacular economic boost Brexit has turned out to be. I mean, just look at all those pints of wine! Imagine how much money we'll have once we cash in all that extra sovereignty! We've literally exported an extra 300mn of good to Australia up to October
Bloomberg estimates Brexit will cost us £100Bn a year. But I guess making .3% back on that one trade deal is a start."Yes that estimate was based off incorrect gdp data and has already been disproven | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've explained why you believe that the UK is now in a worse negotiating position, but that's not what I asked. My question was "In what way are the new non-EU trade deals less beneficial than before?". Can you give us an example of a new non-EU trade deal that is on less beneficial terms than we had before? So, of the 38 trade deals currently in effect between the UK and other territories, 33 are "continuity agreements" which more or less commit to the same terms that the EU negotiated for us (but will benefit us less for the above-stated reasons). The other five are technically new. The CPTTP for example, much-vaunted as a huge coup for post-Brexit trade negotiations is a deal between the UK and what remains of the Trans-Pacific Partnership now the USA has bailed on it. Firstly of the 13 members the UK already had continuity trade deals with 9, so only Brunei and Malaysia are new partners. Secondly those partners being on the other side of the planet, we don't do a massive amount of trade with them, and a lot of it is problematic (e.g. environmentally) in ways not addressed by the deal. Another example would be the Australia deal, to which you might say that the EU doesn't even have one. However because we rushed to conclude ours, we gave away huge concessions such as complete liberalisation of beef and sheep, in exchange for basically nothing. The EU will not likely make such a concession. And again, they're on the other side of the planet. The UK-US trade deal is another that is technically further along than an EU-US trade deal, however the existing deal covers a handful of goods and requires us to negotiate on a per-state basis for the remaining majority of trade, which is unlikely to ever properly conclude. To be fair is it also unlikely the EU will enjoy a comprehensive US trade deal until they elect a real globalist President, but when they do it will be an actual landmark for western tariff relaxation, which we will not see the benefits from. As you can see it's difficult to put in easy headline terms why Brexit has put us at a disadvantage, especially when the pro side are willing to trumpet nonsense about freedom and sovereignty and pretend that all these new deals promise untold riches, but ultimately that contrast between the flag-waving advertising and the cold, boring economic realities is why the referendum went the way it did. I can't work out if this answers the question that Mr Discretion asked. I think he was asking for an example of a non EU trade deal that is less beneficial than what we had previously. So I was expecting an answer to say something like the new UK negotiated trade deal with country X gives us less benefit compared to the previous deal because..... . Again most of our current trade deals are continuity agreements which grant the same terms as the deal we had with those territories when we were still in the EU. Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. The other trade deals are with territories that did not have finalised agreements with the EU. We have decided, through Brexit, to negotiate those on our own instead of as part of the EU trading bloc. The downsides there are those I've listed above. Any potential upsides to the new deals rely on the assumption that the deal the EU would have concluded would be somehow unfavourable to the UK, which is unlikely as the EU deals were broadly, and often very favourable to the UK. We did a LOT of international business thanks to our EU membership. Although the continuity deals are less advantageous to us now than they were pre-Brexit, it would be unwise for us to renegotiate them because it's likely we would come off even worse. This is where I am getting muddled. It is said here and elsewhere that if the UK left the EU it would not be able to do the same deals it enjoyed while an EU member due to being much smaller as a single country. I understand that theory. What I don't understand is that the reality is that the UK struck identical deals from this weaker position which is opposite to the theory. The next thing I'm struggling with is although the deals are identical we are now told it is less advantageous as it used to be because we are no longer in the EU. What is the reason for this reduction when presumably the actual text is identical, may I ask. They can't answer. They refuse to. It's truly amazing that a much smaller country than 27 combined. Was able to rollover the exact same identical deals even though we only had a much smaller bargaining power. But bow apparently we are going to negotiate to make them worse "If you don't understand the concept of collective bargaining, or why trading terms designed for a massive multinational market could be less favourable to a much smaller national market, I'm not sure you're equipped for this argument. I mean it's possible you're pretending these factors don't exist for the purpose of supporting your viewpoint, but let's just say you don't understand them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've explained why you believe that the UK is now in a worse negotiating position, but that's not what I asked. My question was "In what way are the new non-EU trade deals less beneficial than before?". Can you give us an example of a new non-EU trade deal that is on less beneficial terms than we had before? So, of the 38 trade deals currently in effect between the UK and other territories, 33 are "continuity agreements" which more or less commit to the same terms that the EU negotiated for us (but will benefit us less for the above-stated reasons). The other five are technically new. The CPTTP for example, much-vaunted as a huge coup for post-Brexit trade negotiations is a deal between the UK and what remains of the Trans-Pacific Partnership now the USA has bailed on it. Firstly of the 13 members the UK already had continuity trade deals with 9, so only Brunei and Malaysia are new partners. Secondly those partners being on the other side of the planet, we don't do a massive amount of trade with them, and a lot of it is problematic (e.g. environmentally) in ways not addressed by the deal. Another example would be the Australia deal, to which you might say that the EU doesn't even have one. However because we rushed to conclude ours, we gave away huge concessions such as complete liberalisation of beef and sheep, in exchange for basically nothing. The EU will not likely make such a concession. And again, they're on the other side of the planet. The UK-US trade deal is another that is technically further along than an EU-US trade deal, however the existing deal covers a handful of goods and requires us to negotiate on a per-state basis for the remaining majority of trade, which is unlikely to ever properly conclude. To be fair is it also unlikely the EU will enjoy a comprehensive US trade deal until they elect a real globalist President, but when they do it will be an actual landmark for western tariff relaxation, which we will not see the benefits from. As you can see it's difficult to put in easy headline terms why Brexit has put us at a disadvantage, especially when the pro side are willing to trumpet nonsense about freedom and sovereignty and pretend that all these new deals promise untold riches, but ultimately that contrast between the flag-waving advertising and the cold, boring economic realities is why the referendum went the way it did. I can't work out if this answers the question that Mr Discretion asked. I think he was asking for an example of a non EU trade deal that is less beneficial than what we had previously. So I was expecting an answer to say something like the new UK negotiated trade deal with country X gives us less benefit compared to the previous deal because..... . Again most of our current trade deals are continuity agreements which grant the same terms as the deal we had with those territories when we were still in the EU. Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. The other trade deals are with territories that did not have finalised agreements with the EU. We have decided, through Brexit, to negotiate those on our own instead of as part of the EU trading bloc. The downsides there are those I've listed above. Any potential upsides to the new deals rely on the assumption that the deal the EU would have concluded would be somehow unfavourable to the UK, which is unlikely as the EU deals were broadly, and often very favourable to the UK. We did a LOT of international business thanks to our EU membership. Although the continuity deals are less advantageous to us now than they were pre-Brexit, it would be unwise for us to renegotiate them because it's likely we would come off even worse. This is where I am getting muddled. It is said here and elsewhere that if the UK left the EU it would not be able to do the same deals it enjoyed while an EU member due to being much smaller as a single country. I understand that theory. What I don't understand is that the reality is that the UK struck identical deals from this weaker position which is opposite to the theory. The next thing I'm struggling with is although the deals are identical we are now told it is less advantageous as it used to be because we are no longer in the EU. What is the reason for this reduction when presumably the actual text is identical, may I ask. They can't answer. They refuse to. It's truly amazing that a much smaller country than 27 combined. Was able to rollover the exact same identical deals even though we only had a much smaller bargaining power. But bow apparently we are going to negotiate to make them worse
If you don't understand the concept of collective bargaining, or why trading terms designed for a massive multinational market could be less favourable to a much smaller national market, I'm not sure you're equipped for this argument.
I mean it's possible you're pretending these factors don't exist for the purpose of supporting your viewpoint, but let's just say you don't understand them."Do EU trade deals allow for a higher discount on bulk purchases? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. This is the 3rd time you've stated this without anything backing it up. Please can you actually give clarity to why you mistakenly believe this Nah, I'm done. You can lead a horse to water, etc. Enjoy your sunlit uplands. You can't explain it. Because it's not true. Lol no yeah you're right it's all going BRILLIANTLY, you can't look out the window without seeing more evidence of what a spectacular economic boost Brexit has turned out to be. I mean, just look at all those pints of wine! Imagine how much money we'll have once we cash in all that extra sovereignty! We've literally exported an extra 300mn of good to Australia up to October
Bloomberg estimates Brexit will cost us £100Bn a year. But I guess making .3% back on that one trade deal is a start.
Yes that estimate was based off incorrect gdp data and has already been disproven"Has it really been disproven, though? By who? And if so, what was the supposedly correct GDP data and what was the actual calculated deficit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do EU trade deals allow for a higher discount on bulk purchases?" In a roundabout way, yes. The size of the customer influences factors such as increased market confidence, which typically leads to lower prices. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do EU trade deals allow for a higher discount on bulk purchases? In a roundabout way, yes. The size of the customer influences factors such as increased market confidence, which typically leads to lower prices." Maybe you didn't understand the question, or I didn't write it properly. Take a deal which is on the face of it, identical. The EU would pay £1/item but the UK would pay £1.50 per item? I understand when negotiating a deal the argument could be that the EU is bigger than the UK so may get a preferential deal. I'm asking about deals already existing which are identical. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The uk will continue to grow quicker and stronger than the other g7 e.u countries. " The OECD and the IMF disagree with you. Except for Germany, to be fair, but current projections are our growth will be outperformed by France, Italy and the Eurozone average. That's only GDP though. I don't know if you mean by other metrics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do EU trade deals allow for a higher discount on bulk purchases? In a roundabout way, yes. The size of the customer influences factors such as increased market confidence, which typically leads to lower prices. Maybe you didn't understand the question, or I didn't write it properly. Take a deal which is on the face of it, identical. The EU would pay £1/item but the UK would pay £1.50 per item? I understand when negotiating a deal the argument could be that the EU is bigger than the UK so may get a preferential deal. I'm asking about deals already existing which are identical. " The wording of your question implies that international trade deals fix the cost per unit of goods, which they don't. If they did, then rolling over the EU deals would have had a better (or less unfavourable) outcome. International trade deals establish the mechanisms by which countries can trade internationally. These mechanisms tend to have inbuilt economies of scale. So the overall cost or trading internationally is proportionally lower the bigger you are, or proportionally higher the smaller you are. There are loads of other factors such as shipping routes, priority of supply, preferred partnerships, customs etc. which all have an inbuilt cost implication, again which is proportionally lower when shared between a trading bloc with a much larger trading volume. In real terms, the overall cost of the UK importing red dates from Egypt under the terms of the UK/Egypt deal is higher than it would be if we were importing red dates under the terms of the EU/Egypt deal. Firstly it's very possible we're paying more per unit as our total volume of trade is smaller, and secondly we're bearing additional direct and indirect import costs that would be either eliminated or mitigated by EU membership. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do EU trade deals allow for a higher discount on bulk purchases? In a roundabout way, yes. The size of the customer influences factors such as increased market confidence, which typically leads to lower prices. Maybe you didn't understand the question, or I didn't write it properly. Take a deal which is on the face of it, identical. The EU would pay £1/item but the UK would pay £1.50 per item? I understand when negotiating a deal the argument could be that the EU is bigger than the UK so may get a preferential deal. I'm asking about deals already existing which are identical. The wording of your question implies that international trade deals fix the cost per unit of goods, which they don't. If they did, then rolling over the EU deals would have had a better (or less unfavourable) outcome. International trade deals establish the mechanisms by which countries can trade internationally. These mechanisms tend to have inbuilt economies of scale. So the overall cost or trading internationally is proportionally lower the bigger you are, or proportionally higher the smaller you are. There are loads of other factors such as shipping routes, priority of supply, preferred partnerships, customs etc. which all have an inbuilt cost implication, again which is proportionally lower when shared between a trading bloc with a much larger trading volume. In real terms, the overall cost of the UK importing red dates from Egypt under the terms of the UK/Egypt deal is higher than it would be if we were importing red dates under the terms of the EU/Egypt deal. Firstly it's very possible we're paying more per unit as our total volume of trade is smaller, and secondly we're bearing additional direct and indirect import costs that would be either eliminated or mitigated by EU membership." Finally someone talking sense rather than speculative regurgitated rhetorical. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've explained why you believe that the UK is now in a worse negotiating position, but that's not what I asked. My question was "In what way are the new non-EU trade deals less beneficial than before?". Can you give us an example of a new non-EU trade deal that is on less beneficial terms than we had before? So, of the 38 trade deals currently in effect between the UK and other territories, 33 are "continuity agreements" which more or less commit to the same terms that the EU negotiated for us (but will benefit us less for the above-stated reasons). The other five are technically new. The CPTTP for example, much-vaunted as a huge coup for post-Brexit trade negotiations is a deal between the UK and what remains of the Trans-Pacific Partnership now the USA has bailed on it. Firstly of the 13 members the UK already had continuity trade deals with 9, so only Brunei and Malaysia are new partners. Secondly those partners being on the other side of the planet, we don't do a massive amount of trade with them, and a lot of it is problematic (e.g. environmentally) in ways not addressed by the deal. Another example would be the Australia deal, to which you might say that the EU doesn't even have one. However because we rushed to conclude ours, we gave away huge concessions such as complete liberalisation of beef and sheep, in exchange for basically nothing. The EU will not likely make such a concession. And again, they're on the other side of the planet. The UK-US trade deal is another that is technically further along than an EU-US trade deal, however the existing deal covers a handful of goods and requires us to negotiate on a per-state basis for the remaining majority of trade, which is unlikely to ever properly conclude. To be fair is it also unlikely the EU will enjoy a comprehensive US trade deal until they elect a real globalist President, but when they do it will be an actual landmark for western tariff relaxation, which we will not see the benefits from. As you can see it's difficult to put in easy headline terms why Brexit has put us at a disadvantage, especially when the pro side are willing to trumpet nonsense about freedom and sovereignty and pretend that all these new deals promise untold riches, but ultimately that contrast between the flag-waving advertising and the cold, boring economic realities is why the referendum went the way it did." You haven’t provided all the details on the liberalisation of beef and sheep.. it will take 15 years for beef and 20 for sheep. Safeguards in place should we need them and no drops in standards that I’m aware of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You've explained why you believe that the UK is now in a worse negotiating position, but that's not what I asked. My question was "In what way are the new non-EU trade deals less beneficial than before?". Can you give us an example of a new non-EU trade deal that is on less beneficial terms than we had before? So, of the 38 trade deals currently in effect between the UK and other territories, 33 are "continuity agreements" which more or less commit to the same terms that the EU negotiated for us (but will benefit us less for the above-stated reasons). The other five are technically new. The CPTTP for example, much-vaunted as a huge coup for post-Brexit trade negotiations is a deal between the UK and what remains of the Trans-Pacific Partnership now the USA has bailed on it. Firstly of the 13 members the UK already had continuity trade deals with 9, so only Brunei and Malaysia are new partners. Secondly those partners being on the other side of the planet, we don't do a massive amount of trade with them, and a lot of it is problematic (e.g. environmentally) in ways not addressed by the deal. Another example would be the Australia deal, to which you might say that the EU doesn't even have one. However because we rushed to conclude ours, we gave away huge concessions such as complete liberalisation of beef and sheep, in exchange for basically nothing. The EU will not likely make such a concession. And again, they're on the other side of the planet. The UK-US trade deal is another that is technically further along than an EU-US trade deal, however the existing deal covers a handful of goods and requires us to negotiate on a per-state basis for the remaining majority of trade, which is unlikely to ever properly conclude. To be fair is it also unlikely the EU will enjoy a comprehensive US trade deal until they elect a real globalist President, but when they do it will be an actual landmark for western tariff relaxation, which we will not see the benefits from. As you can see it's difficult to put in easy headline terms why Brexit has put us at a disadvantage, especially when the pro side are willing to trumpet nonsense about freedom and sovereignty and pretend that all these new deals promise untold riches, but ultimately that contrast between the flag-waving advertising and the cold, boring economic realities is why the referendum went the way it did. I can't work out if this answers the question that Mr Discretion asked. I think he was asking for an example of a non EU trade deal that is less beneficial than what we had previously. So I was expecting an answer to say something like the new UK negotiated trade deal with country X gives us less benefit compared to the previous deal because..... . Again most of our current trade deals are continuity agreements which grant the same terms as the deal we had with those territories when we were still in the EU. Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. The other trade deals are with territories that did not have finalised agreements with the EU. We have decided, through Brexit, to negotiate those on our own instead of as part of the EU trading bloc. The downsides there are those I've listed above. Any potential upsides to the new deals rely on the assumption that the deal the EU would have concluded would be somehow unfavourable to the UK, which is unlikely as the EU deals were broadly, and often very favourable to the UK. We did a LOT of international business thanks to our EU membership. Although the continuity deals are less advantageous to us now than they were pre-Brexit, it would be unwise for us to renegotiate them because it's likely we would come off even worse. This is where I am getting muddled. It is said here and elsewhere that if the UK left the EU it would not be able to do the same deals it enjoyed while an EU member due to being much smaller as a single country. I understand that theory. What I don't understand is that the reality is that the UK struck identical deals from this weaker position which is opposite to the theory. The next thing I'm struggling with is although the deals are identical we are now told it is less advantageous as it used to be because we are no longer in the EU. What is the reason for this reduction when presumably the actual text is identical, may I ask. They can't answer. They refuse to. It's truly amazing that a much smaller country than 27 combined. Was able to rollover the exact same identical deals even though we only had a much smaller bargaining power. But bow apparently we are going to negotiate to make them worse
If you don't understand the concept of collective bargaining, or why trading terms designed for a massive multinational market could be less favourable to a much smaller national market, I'm not sure you're equipped for this argument.
I mean it's possible you're pretending these factors don't exist for the purpose of supporting your viewpoint, but let's just say you don't understand them."I can assure you I am more tha equipped for thia argument. So can you answer the why if collective bargaining is so strong in making trade deals why those countries rolled them over please. Thank you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. This is the 3rd time you've stated this without anything backing it up. Please can you actually give clarity to why you mistakenly believe this Nah, I'm done. You can lead a horse to water, etc. Enjoy your sunlit uplands. You can't explain it. Because it's not true. Lol no yeah you're right it's all going BRILLIANTLY, you can't look out the window without seeing more evidence of what a spectacular economic boost Brexit has turned out to be. I mean, just look at all those pints of wine! Imagine how much money we'll have once we cash in all that extra sovereignty! We've literally exported an extra 300mn of good to Australia up to October
Bloomberg estimates Brexit will cost us £100Bn a year. But I guess making .3% back on that one trade deal is a start.
Yes that estimate was based off incorrect gdp data and has already been disproven
Has it really been disproven, though? By who? And if so, what was the supposedly correct GDP data and what was the actual calculated deficit?"It was based on tbe diea of tbe uk not having grown as much as France Italy and Germany. It turned out that as many in here came to realise it was based from a deflator issue on gdp numbers. And thenuk had actually outgrown all those economies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do EU trade deals allow for a higher discount on bulk purchases? In a roundabout way, yes. The size of the customer influences factors such as increased market confidence, which typically leads to lower prices." It's not a shop. It's not a push pull model. The e.u has to offer soemthing to an economy that it wants. Services are what people tend to want nowadays. This is the uks area of expertise. If the e.u want to make a trade deal with a 3rd country but can't offer a service. The uk is best positioned. As stated to you previously thisnisnt a primary and secondary working society anymore it's tertiary and quaternary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The uk will continue to grow quicker and stronger than the other g7 e.u countries. The OECD and the IMF disagree with you. Except for Germany, to be fair, but current projections are our growth will be outperformed by France, Italy and the Eurozone average. That's only GDP though. I don't know if you mean by other metrics." The imf do disagree with me a lot. We had this discussion on here and several people who mocked my predictions never came back because I was more accurate than the IMF | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
This is such a nonesense sentence.
Countries become experts in production of products and services for 3xample the Philippines is often a customer service centra because of the expertise in English of its natives.
Netherlands can produce lamb much cheaper and with a lot less carbon input than almost all e.u countries because of its natural climate.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. This is the 3rd time you've stated this without anything backing it up. Please can you actually give clarity to why you mistakenly believe this Nah, I'm done. You can lead a horse to water, etc. Enjoy your sunlit uplands. You can't explain it. Because it's not true. Lol no yeah you're right it's all going BRILLIANTLY, you can't look out the window without seeing more evidence of what a spectacular economic boost Brexit has turned out to be. I mean, just look at all those pints of wine! Imagine how much money we'll have once we cash in all that extra sovereignty! We've literally exported an extra 300mn of good to Australia up to October
Bloomberg estimates Brexit will cost us £100Bn a year. But I guess making .3% back on that one trade deal is a start.
Yes that estimate was based off incorrect gdp data and has already been disproven
Has it really been disproven, though? By who? And if so, what was the supposedly correct GDP data and what was the actual calculated deficit?
It was based on tbe diea of tbe uk not having grown as much as France Italy and Germany.
It turned out that as many in here came to realise it was based from a deflator issue on gdp numbers. And thenuk had actually outgrown all those economies.
"That doesn't answer my question. Who disproved the Bloomberg estimates, and what was their revised deficit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. This is the 3rd time you've stated this without anything backing it up. Please can you actually give clarity to why you mistakenly believe this Nah, I'm done. You can lead a horse to water, etc. Enjoy your sunlit uplands. You can't explain it. Because it's not true. Lol no yeah you're right it's all going BRILLIANTLY, you can't look out the window without seeing more evidence of what a spectacular economic boost Brexit has turned out to be. I mean, just look at all those pints of wine! Imagine how much money we'll have once we cash in all that extra sovereignty! We've literally exported an extra 300mn of good to Australia up to October
Bloomberg estimates Brexit will cost us £100Bn a year. But I guess making .3% back on that one trade deal is a start.
Yes that estimate was based off incorrect gdp data and has already been disproven
Has it really been disproven, though? By who? And if so, what was the supposedly correct GDP data and what was the actual calculated deficit?
It was based on tbe diea of tbe uk not having grown as much as France Italy and Germany.
It turned out that as many in here came to realise it was based from a deflator issue on gdp numbers. And thenuk had actually outgrown all those economies.
That doesn't answer my question. Who disproved the Bloomberg estimates, and what was their revised deficit?"Aww did you not aer the bluebook revision that happened about 5 months after the article was written
Bloomberg believes the uk still hadn't recovered from its lre pandemic gdp levels.
Bloomberge data was only out by a 40bn when the blue book revision occurred. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do EU trade deals allow for a higher discount on bulk purchases? In a roundabout way, yes. The size of the customer influences factors such as increased market confidence, which typically leads to lower prices. It's not a shop. It's not a push pull model. The e.u has to offer soemthing to an economy that it wants. Services are what people tend to want nowadays. This is the uks area of expertise. If the e.u want to make a trade deal with a 3rd country but can't offer a service. The uk is best positioned. As stated to you previously thisnisnt a primary and secondary working society anymore it's tertiary and quaternary. " Just because there is a growing requirement for services doesn't mean products aren't still required. The UK may be primarily a service economy but that doesn't grant it an automatic advantage over the rest of the EU commensurate to the cost of leaving. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do EU trade deals allow for a higher discount on bulk purchases? In a roundabout way, yes. The size of the customer influences factors such as increased market confidence, which typically leads to lower prices. It's not a shop. It's not a push pull model. The e.u has to offer soemthing to an economy that it wants. Services are what people tend to want nowadays. This is the uks area of expertise. If the e.u want to make a trade deal with a 3rd country but can't offer a service. The uk is best positioned. As stated to you previously thisnisnt a primary and secondary working society anymore it's tertiary and quaternary. Just because there is a growing requirement for services doesn't mean products aren't still required. The UK may be primarily a service economy but that doesn't grant it an automatic advantage over the rest of the EU commensurate to the cost of leaving." It does. This is economic 101. People will come to you if you're an expert in something. This is why despite to doom mongering. London is still the biggest financial services provider I the e.u and despite claims of 10s of thousands of job losses to Germany and France. Its financial services sector has continued to grow more and employ more people than its competitors in the e.u | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you sure you're equipped to have this discussion?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Aww did you not aer the bluebook revision that happened about 5 months after the article was written
Bloomberg believes the uk still hadn't recovered from its lre pandemic gdp levels.
Bloomberge data was only out by a 40bn when the blue book revision occurred."I see. And are there credible estimates that suggest Brexit has had a net beneficial effect on the UK economy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Aww did you not aer the bluebook revision that happened about 5 months after the article was written
Bloomberg believes the uk still hadn't recovered from its lre pandemic gdp levels.
Bloomberge data was only out by a 40bn when the blue book revision occurred.
I see.
And are there credible estimates that suggest Brexit has had a net beneficial effect on the UK economy?"Are younsure you're equipped for this conversation when you were quimoting figures 11 months out of date? Where a correction happened 6 months ago that you were completely unaware of? I just want to make sure. As this could get embarrassing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do EU trade deals allow for a higher discount on bulk purchases? In a roundabout way, yes. The size of the customer influences factors such as increased market confidence, which typically leads to lower prices. It's not a shop. It's not a push pull model. The e.u has to offer soemthing to an economy that it wants. Services are what people tend to want nowadays. This is the uks area of expertise. If the e.u want to make a trade deal with a 3rd country but can't offer a service. The uk is best positioned. As stated to you previously thisnisnt a primary and secondary working society anymore it's tertiary and quaternary. Just because there is a growing requirement for services doesn't mean products aren't still required. The UK may be primarily a service economy but that doesn't grant it an automatic advantage over the rest of the EU commensurate to the cost of leaving. It does. This is economic 101. People will come to you if you're an expert in something. This is why despite to doom mongering. London is still the biggest financial services provider I the e.u and despite claims of 10s of thousands of job losses to Germany and France. Its financial services sector has continued to grow more and employ more people than its competitors in the e.u " Yeah, "commensurate to the cost of leaving" is the crucial part of that sentence you chose to ignore. Paying attention to the whole sentence is reading 101. I'm not arguing that Britain is a leader in services and that there is huge demand for it. I'm suggesting that on its own its growth may not be enough to mitigate the overall economic effect of leaving the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Aww did you not aer the bluebook revision that happened about 5 months after the article was written
Bloomberg believes the uk still hadn't recovered from its lre pandemic gdp levels.
Bloomberge data was only out by a 40bn when the blue book revision occurred.
I see.
And are there credible estimates that suggest Brexit has had a net beneficial effect on the UK economy?
Are younsure you're equipped for this conversation when you were quimoting figures 11 months out of date? Where a correction happened 6 months ago that you were completely unaware of?
I just want to make sure. As this could get embarrassing."I'm asking you a question. Please educate me. Let's assume I am indeed completely unequipped to have this discussion. Show me some reliable estimates from reputable sources that demonstrate using gold-standard data that Brexit has has an overall net beneficial effect on the UK. Overall, please, not outlying examples. Failing that, please show me some kind of evidence the NHS has been getting an extra £350M per week over and above what it would be getting if we were still in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do EU trade deals allow for a higher discount on bulk purchases? In a roundabout way, yes. The size of the customer influences factors such as increased market confidence, which typically leads to lower prices. It's not a shop. It's not a push pull model. The e.u has to offer soemthing to an economy that it wants. Services are what people tend to want nowadays. This is the uks area of expertise. If the e.u want to make a trade deal with a 3rd country but can't offer a service. The uk is best positioned. As stated to you previously thisnisnt a primary and secondary working society anymore it's tertiary and quaternary. Just because there is a growing requirement for services doesn't mean products aren't still required. The UK may be primarily a service economy but that doesn't grant it an automatic advantage over the rest of the EU commensurate to the cost of leaving. It does. This is economic 101. People will come to you if you're an expert in something. This is why despite to doom mongering. London is still the biggest financial services provider I the e.u and despite claims of 10s of thousands of job losses to Germany and France. Its financial services sector has continued to grow more and employ more people than its competitors in the e.u Yeah, "commensurate to the cost of leaving" is the crucial part of that sentence you chose to ignore. Paying attention to the whole sentence is reading 101. I'm not arguing that Britain is a leader in services and that there is huge demand for it. I'm suggesting that on its own its growth may not be enough to mitigate the overall economic effect of leaving the EU." Commensurate has no impact. We have a no quota no tariff deal with the e.u. we have some extra costs of paper work...that's it. No deal has to replace being inside the e.u The TCA does this for 80% of uk trade. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Aww did you not aer the bluebook revision that happened about 5 months after the article was written
Bloomberg believes the uk still hadn't recovered from its lre pandemic gdp levels.
Bloomberge data was only out by a 40bn when the blue book revision occurred.
I see.
And are there credible estimates that suggest Brexit has had a net beneficial effect on the UK economy?
Are younsure you're equipped for this conversation when you were quimoting figures 11 months out of date? Where a correction happened 6 months ago that you were completely unaware of?
I just want to make sure. As this could get embarrassing.
I'm asking you a question. Please educate me. Let's assume I am indeed completely unequipped to have this discussion. Show me some reliable estimates from reputable sources that demonstrate using gold-standard data that Brexit has has an overall net beneficial effect on the UK. Overall, please, not outlying examples.
Failing that, please show me some kind of evidence the NHS has been getting an extra £350M per week over and above what it would be getting if we were still in."You really are ill equipped to have this conversation. Here is the nhs spending bill which guaranteed the extra spending. It came out to 394m not 350 https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8798/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You really are ill equipped to have this conversation. Here is the nhs spending bill which guaranteed the extra spending. It came out to 394m not 350 https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8798/" Hmm, I see, and that's all money we would have sent to the EU, is it, and definitely not the necessary year-on-year budget increase the NHS would have had anyway? I'm not seeing anything in that link that shows how the money is explicitly over and above a normal budget increase and paid for in full by savings made from money that we would otherwise have wasted on EU membership. Can you clarify that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You really are ill equipped to have this conversation. Here is the nhs spending bill which guaranteed the extra spending. It came out to 394m not 350 https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8798/ Hmm, I see, and that's all money we would have sent to the EU, is it, and definitely not the necessary year-on-year budget increase the NHS would have had anyway? I'm not seeing anything in that link that shows how the money is explicitly over and above a normal budget increase and paid for in full by savings made from money that we would otherwise have wasted on EU membership. Can you clarify that?" No it's not. As we them spent above that. The guaranteed increased was considerably above the annual spending increases on the nhs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You really are ill equipped to have this conversation. Here is the nhs spending bill which guaranteed the extra spending. It came out to 394m not 350 https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8798/ Hmm, I see, and that's all money we would have sent to the EU, is it, and definitely not the necessary year-on-year budget increase the NHS would have had anyway? I'm not seeing anything in that link that shows how the money is explicitly over and above a normal budget increase and paid for in full by savings made from money that we would otherwise have wasted on EU membership. Can you clarify that? No it's not. As we them spent above that. The guaranteed increased was considerably above the annual spending increases on the nhs." Again, not seeing where there's a correlation between: 1. The UK making a net saving of £350M per week from no longer being am EU member, and 2. An increase in NHS funding £350M pw over and above what the required increases would have been had the referendum gone the other way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple question for you. If the uk Italy France amd Germany were all growing between 1-2% per annum from 2012 to 2019 And after that. The uk outgrew all those other economies. How did brexit have am impact on those other g7 economies to make them grow slower? Surely if brexit had a negative impact we should have grown slower than all 3 other e.u g7 economies, where we were previously equal. We are now about 1.5% ahead of Germany.( who never altered their deflator) We are ahead of Italy 0.6%( who never altered their deflator) We are on par with France who did alter their deflator. The question you need to answer is why suddenly even though 25 years of membership showed all the economies grea the same. Did you expect the uk to outgrow those other 3 g7 economies by 4%?" Yes yes yes but this is still all to complicated for ill-equipped me. I need you to show me solid data that shows the UK is raking it in in the way that was promised ahead of the referendum. "Growth" is too vague, I need you to point to a pound sign followed by a big long number and explain how that wouldn't have been in the UK's bank account if we hadn't said sayonara to our overlords in Brussels. I need you to show me how imported goods are way cheaper and how exports are booming and both have flowing smoothly through seamless customs since the day we burnt the bridge behind us. I mean, I've spent a good part of the last decade thinking the whole thing's a complete - and, worse, pointless - shitshow, but judging by your tone I'm not just ignorant but also probably stupid for that opinion, so I really need you to explain to me, preferably in terms a child would understand, why Brexit was a good idea that has yielded an inarguably positive result. I look forward to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You really are ill equipped to have this conversation. Here is the nhs spending bill which guaranteed the extra spending. It came out to 394m not 350 https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8798/ Hmm, I see, and that's all money we would have sent to the EU, is it, and definitely not the necessary year-on-year budget increase the NHS would have had anyway? I'm not seeing anything in that link that shows how the money is explicitly over and above a normal budget increase and paid for in full by savings made from money that we would otherwise have wasted on EU membership. Can you clarify that? No it's not. As we them spent above that. The guaranteed increased was considerably above the annual spending increases on the nhs. Again, not seeing where there's a correlation between: 1. The UK making a net saving of £350M per week from no longer being am EU member, and 2. An increase in NHS funding £350M pw over and above what the required increases would have been had the referendum gone the other way." You can't see the correlation between leaving the EU.u and not sending 350m a week. And Upon stopping payment to the e.u increasing the bushes for the nhs by a minimum of 390m a week?
Jesus.
Btw. Have you given up onthe 4%
Jave you given up onhow the trade deals are worse.
Have you given up on how Australian and New Zealand meat under cuts uk farmers more than e.u farmers did.
Have you given up on trying to convince us the uk will negotiate worse deals vs rollovers?
Have you given up on talking about ftas and a services focus for the uk rather than goods?
Have you given up on trying to convince us why after 25 years inside the e.u and all the g7 countries growing the same pace. Why you believed the uk would grow 4% more?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple question for you. If the uk Italy France amd Germany were all growing between 1-2% per annum from 2012 to 2019 And after that. The uk outgrew all those other economies. How did brexit have am impact on those other g7 economies to make them grow slower? Surely if brexit had a negative impact we should have grown slower than all 3 other e.u g7 economies, where we were previously equal. We are now about 1.5% ahead of Germany.( who never altered their deflator) We are ahead of Italy 0.6%( who never altered their deflator) We are on par with France who did alter their deflator. The question you need to answer is why suddenly even though 25 years of membership showed all the economies grea the same. Did you expect the uk to outgrow those other 3 g7 economies by 4%? Yes yes yes but this is still all to complicated for ill-equipped me. I need you to show me solid data that shows the UK is raking it in in the way that was promised ahead of the referendum. "Growth" is too vague, I need you to point to a pound sign followed by a big long number and explain how that wouldn't have been in the UK's bank account if we hadn't said sayonara to our overlords in Brussels. I need you to show me how imported goods are way cheaper and how exports are booming and both have flowing smoothly through seamless customs since the day we burnt the bridge behind us. I mean, I've spent a good part of the last decade thinking the whole thing's a complete - and, worse, pointless - shitshow, but judging by your tone I'm not just ignorant but also probably stupid for that opinion, so I really need you to explain to me, preferably in terms a child would understand, why Brexit was a good idea that has yielded an inarguably positive result. I look forward to it." You have been told about exports to Australia increasing. You can see all export import amount Shere for £ signs if you wish. https://www.uktradeinfo.com/trade-data/ots-custom-table/ You can do it by country. Commodity. Import export. I know this has been a real struggle for you. But becoming facetious after having your arse handed to you isn't a good look. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Jave you given up onhow the trade deals are worse. Have you given up on how Australian and New Zealand meat under cuts uk farmers more than e.u farmers did. Have you given up on trying to convince us the uk will negotiate worse deals vs rollovers? Have you given up on talking about ftas and a services focus for the uk rather than goods? Have you given up on trying to convince us why after 25 years inside the e.u and all the g7 countries growing the same pace. Why you believed the uk would grow 4% more? " Not given up so much as gotten bored. I have to hand it to you though. You really are sort of an expert at this. It's pretty close - not there, but close - to convincing. Have you considered working for the IEA? They'd hire you in a shot, I reckon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple question for you. If the uk Italy France amd Germany were all growing between 1-2% per annum from 2012 to 2019 And after that. The uk outgrew all those other economies. How did brexit have am impact on those other g7 economies to make them grow slower? Surely if brexit had a negative impact we should have grown slower than all 3 other e.u g7 economies, where we were previously equal. We are now about 1.5% ahead of Germany.( who never altered their deflator) We are ahead of Italy 0.6%( who never altered their deflator) We are on par with France who did alter their deflator. The question you need to answer is why suddenly even though 25 years of membership showed all the economies grea the same. Did you expect the uk to outgrow those other 3 g7 economies by 4%? Yes yes yes but this is still all to complicated for ill-equipped me. I need you to show me solid data that shows the UK is raking it in in the way that was promised ahead of the referendum. "Growth" is too vague, I need you to point to a pound sign followed by a big long number and explain how that wouldn't have been in the UK's bank account if we hadn't said sayonara to our overlords in Brussels. I need you to show me how imported goods are way cheaper and how exports are booming and both have flowing smoothly through seamless customs since the day we burnt the bridge behind us. I mean, I've spent a good part of the last decade thinking the whole thing's a complete - and, worse, pointless - shitshow, but judging by your tone I'm not just ignorant but also probably stupid for that opinion, so I really need you to explain to me, preferably in terms a child would understand, why Brexit was a good idea that has yielded an inarguably positive result. I look forward to it. You have been told about exports to Australia increasing. You can see all export import amount Shere for £ signs if you wish. https://www.uktradeinfo.com/trade-data/ots-custom-table/ You can do it by country. Commodity. Import export. I know this has been a real struggle for you. But becoming facetious after having your arse handed to you isn't a good look. " Mmmm, freshly-picked cherries. So small, but so juicy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again most of our current trade deals are continuity agreements which grant the same terms as the deal we had with those territories when we were still in the EU. Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us." I'll go back to my original question - In what way are the new non-EU trade deals less beneficial than before? "International trade deals establish the mechanisms by which countries can trade internationally. These mechanisms tend to have inbuilt economies of scale. So the overall cost or trading internationally is proportionally lower the bigger you are, or proportionally higher the smaller you are." Would you like to give an example of such a mechanism? Almost all of the recent trade deals have been 'no tariff no quota' deals. How do economies of scale mean that the EU benefits more from zero tariffs than the tiny UK does? "There are loads of other factors such as shipping routes, priority of supply, preferred partnerships, customs etc. which all have an inbuilt cost implication, again which is proportionally lower when shared between a trading bloc with a much larger trading volume." Assuming that all of that is true, those are benefits of bulk buying. They aren't related to the nature of the trade deal. Zero tariffs is zero tariffs, whether you're a small customer or a large one. "In real terms, the overall cost of the UK importing red dates from Egypt under the terms of the UK/Egypt deal is higher than it would be if we were importing red dates under the terms of the EU/Egypt deal." That's just not true. Under the EU deal, the cost of importing red dates was zero (no tariff). Under the new UK deal it's still zero. "Firstly it's very possible we're paying more per unit as our total volume of trade is smaller, and secondly we're bearing additional direct and indirect import costs that would be either eliminated or mitigated by EU membership." Even if all that were true, that would be a cost of ordering and importing. That's not a cost imposed by the trade deal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again, not seeing where there's a correlation between: 1. The UK making a net saving of £350M per week from no longer being am EU member, and 2. An increase in NHS funding £350M pw over and above what the required increases would have been had the referendum gone the other way. You can't see the correlation between leaving the EU.u and not sending 350m a week. And Upon stopping payment to the e.u increasing the bushes for the nhs by a minimum of 390m a week?
Jesus.
"FYI this is what I mean about cherry-picking. Firstly leaving the EU never represented a £350M pw net saving because it wasn't a net loss. Secondly that cost stopping roughly coinciding with an NHS budget increase in now way means the NHS started to receive £350M pw it otherwise would not have received. That's clear to any reasonable person. If it wasn't those pricks who disowned the Brexit bus as fast as they'd hopped on it would have been back out in force claiming to have planned it all along. But it's too transparent even for the Johnson and his ilk. I'm sure they're pleased you're still gunning for them, though. Otherwise you're doing a pretty good job of pointing at obscure data and implying people are imbeciles for not following the arcane detail of it, and trotting out the usual talking points while on the clearer facts remaining just as vague as you accuse your opponents of being. I guess fundamentally though the issue remains that Brexit was a bad plan executed by incompetent careerists (to put it kindly), and the fact our economy isn't in complete free-fall isn't quite enough for you to persuasively present it as obvious that quitting the EU has all come good in the end. Keep it up though, eh? Everyone in actual power is too embarrassed to talk about it, so somebody's gotta keep the propaganda going. Best of luck. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again most of our current trade deals are continuity agreements which grant the same terms as the deal we had with those territories when we were still in the EU. Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. I'll go back to my original question - In what way are the new non-EU trade deals less beneficial than before? International trade deals establish the mechanisms by which countries can trade internationally. These mechanisms tend to have inbuilt economies of scale. So the overall cost or trading internationally is proportionally lower the bigger you are, or proportionally higher the smaller you are. Would you like to give an example of such a mechanism? Almost all of the recent trade deals have been 'no tariff no quota' deals. How do economies of scale mean that the EU benefits more from zero tariffs than the tiny UK does? There are loads of other factors such as shipping routes, priority of supply, preferred partnerships, customs etc. which all have an inbuilt cost implication, again which is proportionally lower when shared between a trading bloc with a much larger trading volume. Assuming that all of that is true, those are benefits of bulk buying. They aren't related to the nature of the trade deal. Zero tariffs is zero tariffs, whether you're a small customer or a large one. In real terms, the overall cost of the UK importing red dates from Egypt under the terms of the UK/Egypt deal is higher than it would be if we were importing red dates under the terms of the EU/Egypt deal. That's just not true. Under the EU deal, the cost of importing red dates was zero (no tariff). Under the new UK deal it's still zero. Firstly it's very possible we're paying more per unit as our total volume of trade is smaller, and secondly we're bearing additional direct and indirect import costs that would be either eliminated or mitigated by EU membership. Even if all that were true, that would be a cost of ordering and importing. That's not a cost imposed by the trade deal." Okay, just clarify this to me: you do understand that when for example you drive to the shop to buy a loaf of bread, the total cost to you of that trip is more than what the loaf of bread costs, right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay, just clarify this to me: you do understand that when for example you drive to the shop to buy a loaf of bread, the total cost to you of that trip is more than what the loaf of bread costs, right?" Of course. But Brexit hasn't made the shop move further away. We don't have to use different roads to get there, so those costs haven't changed. If I previously had an EU-class loyalty card for the Egypt shop, and I've swapped it for a UK-class card with the same benefits, then the costs of getting a delivery from the Egypt shop haven't changed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again, not seeing where there's a correlation between: 1. The UK making a net saving of £350M per week from no longer being am EU member, and 2. An increase in NHS funding £350M pw over and above what the required increases would have been had the referendum gone the other way. You can't see the correlation between leaving the EU.u and not sending 350m a week. And Upon stopping payment to the e.u increasing the bushes for the nhs by a minimum of 390m a week?
Jesus.
FYI this is what I mean about cherry-picking.
Firstly leaving the EU never represented a £350M pw net saving because it wasn't a net loss.
Secondly that cost stopping roughly coinciding with an NHS budget increase in now way means the NHS started to receive £350M pw it otherwise would not have received.
That's clear to any reasonable person. If it wasn't those pricks who disowned the Brexit bus as fast as they'd hopped on it would have been back out in force claiming to have planned it all along. But it's too transparent even for the Johnson and his ilk. I'm sure they're pleased you're still gunning for them, though.
Otherwise you're doing a pretty good job of pointing at obscure data and implying people are imbeciles for not following the arcane detail of it, and trotting out the usual talking points while on the clearer facts remaining just as vague as you accuse your opponents of being.
I guess fundamentally though the issue remains that Brexit was a bad plan executed by incompetent careerists (to put it kindly), and the fact our economy isn't in complete free-fall isn't quite enough for you to persuasively present it as obvious that quitting the EU has all come good in the end.
Keep it up though, eh? Everyone in actual power is too embarrassed to talk about it, so somebody's gotta keep the propaganda going. Best of luck."Your post seem full or irony here FYI this is what I mean about cherry-picking. Firstly leaving the EU never represented a £350M pw net saving because it wasn't a net loss. It was already decided by court the gross amount was fine. It what we sent to the e.u the e.j then designated the funds and sent some back.but not all. We could then send every penny of the 350 to the nhs. No one disowned the brexkt bus as explained to you. It was signed into law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Again most of our current trade deals are continuity agreements which grant the same terms as the deal we had with those territories when we were still in the EU. Though technically the same, those deals are now less beneficial to us. I'll go back to my original question - In what way are the new non-EU trade deals less beneficial than before? International trade deals establish the mechanisms by which countries can trade internationally. These mechanisms tend to have inbuilt economies of scale. So the overall cost or trading internationally is proportionally lower the bigger you are, or proportionally higher the smaller you are. Would you like to give an example of such a mechanism? Almost all of the recent trade deals have been 'no tariff no quota' deals. How do economies of scale mean that the EU benefits more from zero tariffs than the tiny UK does? There are loads of other factors such as shipping routes, priority of supply, preferred partnerships, customs etc. which all have an inbuilt cost implication, again which is proportionally lower when shared between a trading bloc with a much larger trading volume. Assuming that all of that is true, those are benefits of bulk buying. They aren't related to the nature of the trade deal. Zero tariffs is zero tariffs, whether you're a small customer or a large one. In real terms, the overall cost of the UK importing red dates from Egypt under the terms of the UK/Egypt deal is higher than it would be if we were importing red dates under the terms of the EU/Egypt deal. That's just not true. Under the EU deal, the cost of importing red dates was zero (no tariff). Under the new UK deal it's still zero. Firstly it's very possible we're paying more per unit as our total volume of trade is smaller, and secondly we're bearing additional direct and indirect import costs that would be either eliminated or mitigated by EU membership. Even if all that were true, that would be a cost of ordering and importing. That's not a cost imposed by the trade deal. Okay, just clarify this to me: you do understand that when for example you drive to the shop to buy a loaf of bread, the total cost to you of that trip is more than what the loaf of bread costs, right?" What? Are yout ruing to compare new Zealand growing a lamb for a cost of £5 for example please a d shipping £1 is less than the e.u cost of raising the lamb at £7 and driving it to the uk at 10p? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay, just clarify this to me: you do understand that when for example you drive to the shop to buy a loaf of bread, the total cost to you of that trip is more than what the loaf of bread costs, right? Of course. But Brexit hasn't made the shop move further away. We don't have to use different roads to get there, so those costs haven't changed. If I previously had an EU-class loyalty card for the Egypt shop, and I've swapped it for a UK-class card with the same benefits, then the costs of getting a delivery from the Egypt shop haven't changed." I wasn't sure what they were trying to say. But if they are trying tk say your interpretation as well. It's just as mind boggling | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again, not seeing where there's a correlation between: 1. The UK making a net saving of £350M per week from no longer being am EU member, and 2. An increase in NHS funding £350M pw over and above what the required increases would have been had the referendum gone the other way. You can't see the correlation between leaving the EU.u and not sending 350m a week. And Upon stopping payment to the e.u increasing the bushes for the nhs by a minimum of 390m a week?
Jesus.
FYI this is what I mean about cherry-picking.
Firstly leaving the EU never represented a £350M pw net saving because it wasn't a net loss.
Secondly that cost stopping roughly coinciding with an NHS budget increase in now way means the NHS started to receive £350M pw it otherwise would not have received.
That's clear to any reasonable person. If it wasn't those pricks who disowned the Brexit bus as fast as they'd hopped on it would have been back out in force claiming to have planned it all along. But it's too transparent even for the Johnson and his ilk. I'm sure they're pleased you're still gunning for them, though.
Otherwise you're doing a pretty good job of pointing at obscure data and implying people are imbeciles for not following the arcane detail of it, and trotting out the usual talking points while on the clearer facts remaining just as vague as you accuse your opponents of being.
I guess fundamentally though the issue remains that Brexit was a bad plan executed by incompetent careerists (to put it kindly), and the fact our economy isn't in complete free-fall isn't quite enough for you to persuasively present it as obvious that quitting the EU has all come good in the end.
Keep it up though, eh? Everyone in actual power is too embarrassed to talk about it, so somebody's gotta keep the propaganda going. Best of luck."How much did the government spend on saving “Our NHS” during the pandemic? Didn’t it rack up £500 billion? Still not enough? How do you explain the dismal economic performance of eurozone economies? They are all still in the EU. Why aren’t they seeing stellar levels of growth? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another lovely convo (shit throwing comp) discussing macro economics, GDP growth, deflators yadda yadda. None of that means diddly squat to the average man in the street. Only one question is really relevant to the average man (or woman) in the street. Am I better or worse off? Most people will get that A = X and that there is more complexity like A+B-C+D-E = X but really most people will look at only one rather two to four exogenous impacts on the economy and have any iota of understanding. We have (top of mind): - Continued fall out from 2008 financial crash - Brexit - Covid Pandemic - War in Ukraine - War in Israel/Palestine Throw into the mix market reactions to Truss/Kwartang. It is pretty much impossible to fully isolate and disaggregate negative impacts and positive benefits. It is too complex and inter-connected. So all that really matters is “are you feeling better or worse off?”" Nooo, don't try to talk about what people are paying for their mortgages or food, they'll come right back at you with how delighted we're supposed to be that we've sold a few autographed copies of the Beano to New Zealand! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seriously though guys it's been real. Thanks for playing. I'm off to drive the brand new luxury car we all got issued with our shiny blue passports to the sunlit uplands where all the goods are cheap thanks to real men of the people like Moggy and good old Nige. Auf wiedersehen!" Nige thought so much of this country he got his children German passports post Brexit anyway….. Definitely a “do as I say and not as I do “ kinda person….. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Okay, just clarify this to me: you do understand that when for example you drive to the shop to buy a loaf of bread, the total cost to you of that trip is more than what the loaf of bread costs, right? Of course. But Brexit hasn't made the shop move further away. We don't have to use different roads to get there, so those costs haven't changed. If I previously had an EU-class loyalty card for the Egypt shop, and I've swapped it for a UK-class card with the same benefits, then the costs of getting a delivery from the Egypt shop haven't changed. I wasn't sure what they were trying to say. But if they are trying tk say your interpretation as well. It's just as mind boggling" That theory of theirs might work if the EU bought everything in bulk for all member countries and when delivered had it distributed it around the members. I don't think this is what happens but maybe it is. Still not heard an explanation why it was possible for the UK to strike identical deals post brexit to what it had pre brexit given it is now a single country. Or why somehow, being identical means less beneficial | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seriously though guys it's been real. Thanks for playing. I'm off to drive the brand new luxury car we all got issued with our shiny blue passports to the sunlit uplands where all the goods are cheap thanks to real men of the people like Moggy and good old Nige. Auf wiedersehen! Nige thought so much of this country he got his children German passports post Brexit anyway….. Definitely a “do as I say and not as I do “ kinda person….." The mother of 2 of his children is German. The same 2 children who have an entitlement to German citizenship and a passport.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That theory of theirs might work if the EU bought everything in bulk for all member countries and when delivered had it distributed it around the members. I don't think this is what happens but maybe it is. Still not heard an explanation why it was possible for the UK to strike identical deals post brexit to what it had pre brexit given it is now a single country. Or why somehow, being identical means less beneficial" So firstly the UK didn't broker identical deals. They're continuity agreements. The pro-Brexit narrative would have it as evidence of the success of the endeavour, I don't have the energy or interest to keep explaining why it's not, other than to address your second question. If you assume that the only cost of trading is the list price of imported goods then sure, a continuity deal is just as good as the deal we had when in the EU. But you'll notice that all the arguments for Brexit being a success focus with very few exceptions on this specific subtotal and essentially pretend that overheads, peripheral costs and costs other than monetary just don't exist. We as a nation used to think that those costs were significant enough to justify at least part of the annual £18Bn we were paying in EU dues. Why? Because it was offset by the economic benefit of having those costs shared by the trading bloc. Now, all this being said, it is true that a tremendous amount of work and care (on all sides, not just the UK) has gone into mitigating the negative effects of Brexit, because it's not like other territories were going to stop trading with us, let alone punish us, for making a however ill-advised decision. That's not how commerce works. Thanks to this we are not doing all that badly, all things considered. But again, does that mean Brexit was the right thing to do, or was it a mistake that took a tremendous and ongoing effort to adjust for, and without which we might be in a way better position, both economically and to influence the fates of our former trade allies? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seriously though guys it's been real. Thanks for playing. I'm off to drive the brand new luxury car we all got issued with our shiny blue passports to the sunlit uplands where all the goods are cheap thanks to real men of the people like Moggy and good old Nige. Auf wiedersehen! Nige thought so much of this country he got his children German passports post Brexit anyway….. Definitely a “do as I say and not as I do “ kinda person….. The mother of 2 of his children is German. The same 2 children who have an entitlement to German citizenship and a passport.... " Which they only decided to do after the vote… I wonder as to what benefits they thought they may miss out on after that they didn’t have before It’s a bit like Stanley Johnson deciding to get a French passport after the vote…… I know what you are going to say… they were entitled… blah blah | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seriously though guys it's been real. Thanks for playing. I'm off to drive the brand new luxury car we all got issued with our shiny blue passports to the sunlit uplands where all the goods are cheap thanks to real men of the people like Moggy and good old Nige. Auf wiedersehen! Nige thought so much of this country he got his children German passports post Brexit anyway….. Definitely a “do as I say and not as I do “ kinda person….. The mother of 2 of his children is German. The same 2 children who have an entitlement to German citizenship and a passport.... Which they only decided to do after the vote… I wonder as to what benefits they thought they may miss out on after that they didn’t have before It’s a bit like Stanley Johnson deciding to get a French passport after the vote…… I know what you are going to say… they were entitled… blah blah " But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? " I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another lovely convo (shit throwing comp) discussing macro economics, GDP growth, deflators yadda yadda. None of that means diddly squat to the average man in the street. Only one question is really relevant to the average man (or woman) in the street. Am I better or worse off? Most people will get that A = X and that there is more complexity like A+B-C+D-E = X but really most people will look at only one rather two to four exogenous impacts on the economy and have any iota of understanding. We have (top of mind): - Continued fall out from 2008 financial crash - Brexit - Covid Pandemic - War in Ukraine - War in Israel/Palestine Throw into the mix market reactions to Truss/Kwartang. It is pretty much impossible to fully isolate and disaggregate negative impacts and positive benefits. It is too complex and inter-connected. So all that really matters is “are you feeling better or worse off?”" They are better off. Because the comparator economies inside the e.u are worse off. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seriously though guys it's been real. Thanks for playing. I'm off to drive the brand new luxury car we all got issued with our shiny blue passports to the sunlit uplands where all the goods are cheap thanks to real men of the people like Moggy and good old Nige. Auf wiedersehen!" And there's the crux of it that we often see lots of hyperbole. Lots of dramatisation. But when questioned on their knowledge and presented with statistical facts. Not feelings. The jokes and facetious replies come out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe." Whay did he do that was racist again? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again?" Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look." You don't do a lot of things when asked for proof, do you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. You don't do a lot of things when asked for proof, do you "Prove it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. You don't do a lot of things when asked for proof, do you
Prove it!"The proof is across the threads this morning should you like to peruse. You've been quite funny this morning. New year, new you and all that bollocks? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look." He isn't a racist. As of yet. No one in here has been able to prove he is when they have tried commenting on it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. You don't do a lot of things when asked for proof, do you "A sad thing for many on here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. You don't do a lot of things when asked for proof, do you
Prove it!
The proof is across the threads this morning should you like to peruse.
You've been quite funny this morning. New year, new you and all that bollocks?"Doing my best. New Year’s Resolution “stop taking a discussion forum on a swinger website so seriously and see the funny side of all those avatars with cocks, asses, tits, and pussies, and focus more on what this site is really about!” Like most new year’s resolutions, it will probably not last past the week | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. He isn't a racist. As of yet. No one in here has been able to prove he is when they have tried commenting on it" I’ll just repost...Farage is a dick but a clever dick and clever enough to understand plausible deniability. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. He isn't a racist. As of yet. No one in here has been able to prove he is when they have tried commenting on it" ... to your standard of proof, which is from what I've seen is to pretend anything that refutes your position isn't real. Interesting you make a habit of defending racists, though. The more I know about you, the nicer you seem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. He isn't a racist. As of yet. No one in here has been able to prove he is when they have tried commenting on it ... to your standard of proof, which is from what I've seen is to pretend anything that refutes your position isn't real. Interesting you make a habit of defending racists, though. The more I know about you, the nicer you seem." Would you care to show one statement from Farage, that meets your own standard of proof? Just one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. You don't do a lot of things when asked for proof, do you
Prove it!
The proof is across the threads this morning should you like to peruse.
You've been quite funny this morning. New year, new you and all that bollocks?
Doing my best. New Year’s Resolution “stop taking a discussion forum on a swinger website so seriously and see the funny side of all those avatars with cocks, asses, tits, and pussies, and focus more on what this site is really about!”
Like most new year’s resolutions, it will probably not last past the week "I'm making no changes. I'll still be here to piss people off. Hopefully I'll find a few more this year who stop replying to me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. He isn't a racist. As of yet. No one in here has been able to prove he is when they have tried commenting on it I’ll just repost...Farage is a dick but a clever dick and clever enough to understand plausible deniability." Speaking in code is a long-rehearsed tactic of the far right, as transparent to sane people as when they grew their hair out and put on nice suits, but just vanilla enough to allow their fans to believe it's not really actual bigotry. There's a bit in the O'Brien/Farage interview where O'Brien asks him what he means when he says he would feel uneasy about living next door to Romanians, and he does that conspiratorial "you know what I mean" thing racists do when they're trying to get white people to agree with them. He's just slick enough to never say what he really means, but his actions speak for themselves. Like how the only thing he actually lifted a finger to do when he was in the EU Parliament was form alliances with sundry Holocaust-deniers and Anders Breivik fans. Or how his core duties as UKIP frontman seemed to consist of apologising for their candidates' constant barrage of racist and/or homophobic tweets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage first marriage was to an Irish citizen, his second was to a German citizen and I believe he is currently in a relationship with a French lady. Maybe he’s being racist to foreigners one at a time." I was so tempted to say he is working his way through the EU one country at a time……
Or maybe British women have all had this “meeting” I keep hearing about and have declared him off limits!!
(The above two statements are jokes… I repeat… jokes!!!)
Mind you… I’d love to see farages dating profile on an app… I am betting it would be epic!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. He isn't a racist. As of yet. No one in here has been able to prove he is when they have tried commenting on it ... to your standard of proof, which is from what I've seen is to pretend anything that refutes your position isn't real. Interesting you make a habit of defending racists, though. The more I know about you, the nicer you seem. Would you care to show one statement from Farage, that meets your own standard of proof? Just one. " Again, just FYI, insisting that people prove to you that a well-known racist is in fact a racist is a pretty dodgy look. Not playing your game. You feel free to keep on showing people who you are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. He isn't a racist. As of yet. No one in here has been able to prove he is when they have tried commenting on it ... to your standard of proof, which is from what I've seen is to pretend anything that refutes your position isn't real. Interesting you make a habit of defending racists, though. The more I know about you, the nicer you seem. Would you care to show one statement from Farage, that meets your own standard of proof? Just one. Again, just FYI, insisting that people prove to you that a well-known racist is in fact a racist is a pretty dodgy look. Not playing your game. You feel free to keep on showing people who you are." I'm perfectly happy to 'show people who I am'. I'm also perfectly happy to conclude that you're responses (or lack of) are typical of the loud left who usually fall flat when challenged. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. He isn't a racist. As of yet. No one in here has been able to prove he is when they have tried commenting on it ... to your standard of proof, which is from what I've seen is to pretend anything that refutes your position isn't real. Interesting you make a habit of defending racists, though. The more I know about you, the nicer you seem. Would you care to show one statement from Farage, that meets your own standard of proof? Just one. Again, just FYI, insisting that people prove to you that a well-known racist is in fact a racist is a pretty dodgy look. Not playing your game. You feel free to keep on showing people who you are. I'm perfectly happy to 'show people who I am'. I'm also perfectly happy to conclude that you're responses (or lack of) are typical of the loud left who usually fall flat when challenged. "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. He isn't a racist. As of yet. No one in here has been able to prove he is when they have tried commenting on it ... to your standard of proof, which is from what I've seen is to pretend anything that refutes your position isn't real. Interesting you make a habit of defending racists, though. The more I know about you, the nicer you seem. Would you care to show one statement from Farage, that meets your own standard of proof? Just one. Again, just FYI, insisting that people prove to you that a well-known racist is in fact a racist is a pretty dodgy look. Not playing your game. You feel free to keep on showing people who you are. I'm perfectly happy to 'show people who I am'. I'm also perfectly happy to conclude that you're responses (or lack of) are typical of the loud left who usually fall flat when challenged. " I don't think you understand just how little interest I have in indulging your hobby of reinterpreting Farage's less savoury remarks. You may wish to spend your time rehabilitating the friendly face of incipient neo-fascism, however I'm very comfortable putting you, and anyone who agrees with your generous view of his pathetic, revolting politics, in a little box marked "people not worth arguing with". I am happy however to stick around and flag whenever you try to claim he's not the bigot he clearly is, lest someone take you seriously. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left have no shame in calling people they do not like whatever they like. "It's true. I don't like racists, and I have no shame in calling them racists. You've got me there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left have no shame in calling people they do not like whatever they like.
It's true. I don't like racists, and I have no shame in calling them racists.
You've got me there."Anymore racists you would like to call out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left have no shame in calling people they do not like whatever they like.
It's true. I don't like racists, and I have no shame in calling them racists.
You've got me there.
Anymore racists you would like to call out. "I mean, we were discussing Nige so it's relevant. Any others come up, I'll be sure to let you know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left have no shame in calling people they do not like whatever they like.
It's true. I don't like racists, and I have no shame in calling them racists.
You've got me there.
Anymore racists you would like to call out.
I mean, we were discussing Nige so it's relevant. Any others come up, I'll be sure to let you know."The thread is about Germany in recession.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left have no shame in calling people they do not like whatever they like.
It's true. I don't like racists, and I have no shame in calling them racists.
You've got me there.
Anymore racists you would like to call out.
I mean, we were discussing Nige so it's relevant. Any others come up, I'll be sure to let you know.
The thread is about Germany in recession. "That's how it started, yeah. Discussions habitually evolve to cover multiple topics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left have no shame in calling people they do not like whatever they like.
It's true. I don't like racists, and I have no shame in calling them racists.
You've got me there.
Anymore racists you would like to call out.
I mean, we were discussing Nige so it's relevant. Any others come up, I'll be sure to let you know.
The thread is about Germany in recession.
That's how it started, yeah. Discussions habitually evolve to cover multiple topics."Lol. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left have no shame in calling people they do not like whatever they like.
It's true. I don't like racists, and I have no shame in calling them racists.
You've got me there.
Anymore racists you would like to call out.
I mean, we were discussing Nige so it's relevant. Any others come up, I'll be sure to let you know.
The thread is about Germany in recession.
That's how it started, yeah. Discussions habitually evolve to cover multiple topics.
Lol. "Start a thread about Mr farage being racist then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left have no shame in calling people they do not like whatever they like.
It's true. I don't like racists, and I have no shame in calling them racists.
You've got me there.
Anymore racists you would like to call out.
I mean, we were discussing Nige so it's relevant. Any others come up, I'll be sure to let you know.
The thread is about Germany in recession.
That's how it started, yeah. Discussions habitually evolve to cover multiple topics.
Lol.
Start a thread about Mr farage being racist then. "What for? The question is settled for me. I realise some people are still apparently unclear on the issue, but I really don't have any interest in discovering why. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left have no shame in calling people they do not like whatever they like.
It's true. I don't like racists, and I have no shame in calling them racists.
You've got me there.
Anymore racists you would like to call out.
I mean, we were discussing Nige so it's relevant. Any others come up, I'll be sure to let you know.
The thread is about Germany in recession.
That's how it started, yeah. Discussions habitually evolve to cover multiple topics.
Lol.
Start a thread about Mr farage being racist then.
What for? The question is settled for me. I realise some people are still apparently unclear on the issue, but I really don't have any interest in discovering why."Lol. Run along then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left have no shame in calling people they do not like whatever they like.
It's true. I don't like racists, and I have no shame in calling them racists.
You've got me there.
Anymore racists you would like to call out.
I mean, we were discussing Nige so it's relevant. Any others come up, I'll be sure to let you know.
The thread is about Germany in recession.
That's how it started, yeah. Discussions habitually evolve to cover multiple topics.
Lol.
Start a thread about Mr farage being racist then.
What for? The question is settled for me. I realise some people are still apparently unclear on the issue, but I really don't have any interest in discovering why.
Lol. Run along then."I'm not sure you're aware but this is a public forum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left have no shame in calling people they do not like whatever they like.
It's true. I don't like racists, and I have no shame in calling them racists.
You've got me there.
Anymore racists you would like to call out.
I mean, we were discussing Nige so it's relevant. Any others come up, I'll be sure to let you know.
The thread is about Germany in recession.
That's how it started, yeah. Discussions habitually evolve to cover multiple topics.
Lol.
Start a thread about Mr farage being racist then.
What for? The question is settled for me. I realise some people are still apparently unclear on the issue, but I really don't have any interest in discovering why.
Lol. Run along then.
I'm not sure you're aware but this is a public forum."Of course I'm aware, I thought you were not interested why people don't see it as you see it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". Of course I'm aware, I thought you were not interested why people don't see it as you see it." Sorry, I should clarify. There are two reasons people claim Farage isn't a racist: 1. They believe it, in which case they are (kindly) extremely gullible. 2. They don't believe it, but as long as explicit bigotry remains socially unacceptable, they need to protect the coded language such people use to communicate amongst their base in public. I'm just not interested in finding out which of the above applies to whoever I'm talking to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. He isn't a racist. As of yet. No one in here has been able to prove he is when they have tried commenting on it ... to your standard of proof, which is from what I've seen is to pretend anything that refutes your position isn't real. Interesting you make a habit of defending racists, though. The more I know about you, the nicer you seem. Would you care to show one statement from Farage, that meets your own standard of proof? Just one. Again, just FYI, insisting that people prove to you that a well-known racist is in fact a racist is a pretty dodgy look. Not playing your game. You feel free to keep on showing people who you are. I'm perfectly happy to 'show people who I am'. I'm also perfectly happy to conclude that you're responses (or lack of) are typical of the loud left who usually fall flat when challenged. I don't think you understand just how little interest I have in indulging your hobby of reinterpreting Farage's less savoury remarks. You may wish to spend your time rehabilitating the friendly face of incipient neo-fascism, however I'm very comfortable putting you, and anyone who agrees with your generous view of his pathetic, revolting politics, in a little box marked "people not worth arguing with". I am happy however to stick around and flag whenever you try to claim he's not the bigot he clearly is, lest someone take you seriously." As expected. No evidence so just say a load of emotional shit which provides no clarity. Well done you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. He isn't a racist. As of yet. No one in here has been able to prove he is when they have tried commenting on it ... to your standard of proof, which is from what I've seen is to pretend anything that refutes your position isn't real. Interesting you make a habit of defending racists, though. The more I know about you, the nicer you seem. Would you care to show one statement from Farage, that meets your own standard of proof? Just one. Again, just FYI, insisting that people prove to you that a well-known racist is in fact a racist is a pretty dodgy look. Not playing your game. You feel free to keep on showing people who you are. I'm perfectly happy to 'show people who I am'. I'm also perfectly happy to conclude that you're responses (or lack of) are typical of the loud left who usually fall flat when challenged. I don't think you understand just how little interest I have in indulging your hobby of reinterpreting Farage's less savoury remarks. You may wish to spend your time rehabilitating the friendly face of incipient neo-fascism, however I'm very comfortable putting you, and anyone who agrees with your generous view of his pathetic, revolting politics, in a little box marked "people not worth arguing with". I am happy however to stick around and flag whenever you try to claim he's not the bigot he clearly is, lest someone take you seriously. As expected. No evidence so just say a load of emotional shit which provides no clarity. Well done you " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". Of course I'm aware, I thought you were not interested why people don't see it as you see it. Sorry, I should clarify. There are two reasons people claim Farage isn't a racist: 1. They believe it, in which case they are (kindly) extremely gullible. 2. They don't believe it, but as long as explicit bigotry remains socially unacceptable, they need to protect the coded language such people use to communicate amongst their base in public. I'm just not interested in finding out which of the above applies to whoever I'm talking to." Coded language,, you definitely are nice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. He isn't a racist. As of yet. No one in here has been able to prove he is when they have tried commenting on it ... to your standard of proof, which is from what I've seen is to pretend anything that refutes your position isn't real. Interesting you make a habit of defending racists, though. The more I know about you, the nicer you seem. Would you care to show one statement from Farage, that meets your own standard of proof? Just one. Again, just FYI, insisting that people prove to you that a well-known racist is in fact a racist is a pretty dodgy look. Not playing your game. You feel free to keep on showing people who you are. I'm perfectly happy to 'show people who I am'. I'm also perfectly happy to conclude that you're responses (or lack of) are typical of the loud left who usually fall flat when challenged. I don't think you understand just how little interest I have in indulging your hobby of reinterpreting Farage's less savoury remarks. You may wish to spend your time rehabilitating the friendly face of incipient neo-fascism, however I'm very comfortable putting you, and anyone who agrees with your generous view of his pathetic, revolting politics, in a little box marked "people not worth arguing with". I am happy however to stick around and flag whenever you try to claim he's not the bigot he clearly is, lest someone take you seriously. As expected. No evidence so just say a load of emotional shit which provides no clarity. Well done you "Listen dude, with as much love and respect as I can possibly muster, I have spent countless hours methodically demonstrating to fans of white nationalists that their banner-boy of choice is a however well-concealed racist, and what I have come to realise is short of coming up with a photo of said personality wearing the sandwich board from Die Hard 3, they will never, ever concede the existence of anything more than the so-called bravery to "say what everyone else is thinking" - which incidentally is also a well-rehearsed code-phrase. I don't know why you're saying what you're saying, but as I've described above it's one of two reasons. I don't really care which, because in either case there's literally no point in arguing the toss with you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. He isn't a racist. As of yet. No one in here has been able to prove he is when they have tried commenting on it ... to your standard of proof, which is from what I've seen is to pretend anything that refutes your position isn't real. Interesting you make a habit of defending racists, though. The more I know about you, the nicer you seem. Would you care to show one statement from Farage, that meets your own standard of proof? Just one. Again, just FYI, insisting that people prove to you that a well-known racist is in fact a racist is a pretty dodgy look. Not playing your game. You feel free to keep on showing people who you are. I'm perfectly happy to 'show people who I am'. I'm also perfectly happy to conclude that you're responses (or lack of) are typical of the loud left who usually fall flat when challenged. I don't think you understand just how little interest I have in indulging your hobby of reinterpreting Farage's less savoury remarks. You may wish to spend your time rehabilitating the friendly face of incipient neo-fascism, however I'm very comfortable putting you, and anyone who agrees with your generous view of his pathetic, revolting politics, in a little box marked "people not worth arguing with". I am happy however to stick around and flag whenever you try to claim he's not the bigot he clearly is, lest someone take you seriously. As expected. No evidence so just say a load of emotional shit which provides no clarity. Well done you
Listen dude, with as much love and respect as I can possibly muster, I have spent countless hours methodically demonstrating to fans of white nationalists that their banner-boy of choice is a however well-concealed racist, and what I have come to realise is short of coming up with a photo of said personality wearing the sandwich board from Die Hard 3, they will never, ever concede the existence of anything more than the so-called bravery to "say what everyone else is thinking" - which incidentally is also a well-rehearsed code-phrase.
I don't know why you're saying what you're saying, but as I've described above it's one of two reasons. I don't really care which, because in either case there's literally no point in arguing the toss with you."Yep, only people who think Farage is racist are able to decipher his 'well-rehearsed, coded messages'. Same left as always, zero evidence as always. Maybe, just maybe, he isn't racist but because you believe he's extreme far right, you can't actually see it. All I've done here is ask for ONE piece of evidence, something which you fail to provide. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yep, only people who think Farage is racist are able to decipher his 'well-rehearsed, coded messages'. Same left as always, zero evidence as always. Maybe, just maybe, he isn't racist but because you believe he's extreme far right, you can't actually see it. All I've done here is ask for ONE piece of evidence, something which you fail to provide. " Not fail, refuse. As stated, I'm not playing your little game. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yep, only people who think Farage is racist are able to decipher his 'well-rehearsed, coded messages'. Same left as always, zero evidence as always. Maybe, just maybe, he isn't racist but because you believe he's extreme far right, you can't actually see it. All I've done here is ask for ONE piece of evidence, something which you fail to provide. Not fail, refuse. As stated, I'm not playing your little game." Got it. Imagine complaining about people discussing in GOOD FAITH and playing games when you refuse to answer genuine requests. I see you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yep, only people who think Farage is racist are able to decipher his 'well-rehearsed, coded messages'. Same left as always, zero evidence as always. Maybe, just maybe, he isn't racist but because you believe he's extreme far right, you can't actually see it. All I've done here is ask for ONE piece of evidence, something which you fail to provide. Not fail, refuse. As stated, I'm not playing your little game. Got it. Imagine complaining about people discussing in GOOD FAITH and playing games when you refuse to answer genuine requests. I see you "NB: asking people to prove a racist is a racist is not a genuine request. It's seeking the opportunity to discredit the evidence of their racism. I see you too. This isn't my first time dealing with people who, for their own reasons, want to make it harder to identify racists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yep, only people who think Farage is racist are able to decipher his 'well-rehearsed, coded messages'. Same left as always, zero evidence as always. Maybe, just maybe, he isn't racist but because you believe he's extreme far right, you can't actually see it. All I've done here is ask for ONE piece of evidence, something which you fail to provide. Not fail, refuse. As stated, I'm not playing your little game. Got it. Imagine complaining about people discussing in GOOD FAITH and playing games when you refuse to answer genuine requests. I see you
NB: asking people to prove a racist is a racist is not a genuine request. It's seeking the opportunity to discredit the evidence of their racism.
I see you too. This isn't my first time dealing with people who, for their own reasons, want to make it harder to identify racists. "You are not changing anyone's perception of Mr farage by not providing evidence of his racism. The truth and the facts can not be hidden. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yep, only people who think Farage is racist are able to decipher his 'well-rehearsed, coded messages'. Same left as always, zero evidence as always. Maybe, just maybe, he isn't racist but because you believe he's extreme far right, you can't actually see it. All I've done here is ask for ONE piece of evidence, something which you fail to provide. Not fail, refuse. As stated, I'm not playing your little game. Got it. Imagine complaining about people discussing in GOOD FAITH and playing games when you refuse to answer genuine requests. I see you
NB: asking people to prove a racist is a racist is not a genuine request. It's seeking the opportunity to discredit the evidence of their racism.
I see you too. This isn't my first time dealing with people who, for their own reasons, want to make it harder to identify racists. "I haven't at any point tried to discredit any evidence. Why? Because none has been provided. Who said anything about making it harder to identify racists? You seem to have already made your mind up about me, knowing just about fuck all about me. BTW, this isn't the first time I've dealt with someone who thinks any question they can't answer plays the racist card | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. He isn't a racist. As of yet. No one in here has been able to prove he is when they have tried commenting on it ... to your standard of proof, which is from what I've seen is to pretend anything that refutes your position isn't real. Interesting you make a habit of defending racists, though. The more I know about you, the nicer you seem." Again...feel free to post a racist tweet or comment he made. Other fell into this trap a while back without realising that conversations have context and snipping things out does them no good. We await your proof of him hating black people or Asians etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are not changing anyone's perception of Mr farage by not providing evidence of his racism. The truth and the facts can not be hidden." I have yet to encounter anyone on this thread whose opinion would be changed by evidence of it. Just people who want to cast doubt on it by tying the argument up in semantics and qualifications while subtly feeding in the idea that hey, maybe he's got a few good points about such and such an ethnic group, etc etc. Like I said, not my first rodeo. If anyone here genuinely thought he was a decent human being they'd have spoken up about it. Everyone knows he's a shitbag. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But the children are entitled to German citizenship, Brexit or not that doesn’t change this. So why is it all blah blah? I think the specific objection to Farage's situation is his hypocritically selective racism. I mean the man was only ever a politically troll, albeit an unreservedly successful one, but people took him seriously enough that one of the key factors in the referendum was whatever nonsense people believed about the effect it would have on immigration, and in many cases immigration from continental Europe. Whay did he do that was racist again? Yeah, so I don't participate in that thing where people ask you to prove that a racist is a racist. I'm not going to say it infers anything about you personally, but just FYI going around saying you reckon Farage isn't a racist isn't the best look. He isn't a racist. As of yet. No one in here has been able to prove he is when they have tried commenting on it I’ll just repost...Farage is a dick but a clever dick and clever enough to understand plausible deniability. Speaking in code is a long-rehearsed tactic of the far right, as transparent to sane people as when they grew their hair out and put on nice suits, but just vanilla enough to allow their fans to believe it's not really actual bigotry. There's a bit in the O'Brien/Farage interview where O'Brien asks him what he means when he says he would feel uneasy about living next door to Romanians, and he does that conspiratorial "you know what I mean" thing racists do when they're trying to get white people to agree with them. He's just slick enough to never say what he really means, but his actions speak for themselves. Like how the only thing he actually lifted a finger to do when he was in the EU Parliament was form alliances with sundry Holocaust-deniers and Anders Breivik fans. Or how his core duties as UKIP frontman seemed to consist of apologising for their candidates' constant barrage of racist and/or homophobic tweets." Ah yes I think you should listen to the whole interview. You see he talks about the crime levels of gangs of men from Romania from the e.us own report on organised crime . He said you'd rather lived next to a German family with kids than 20 Romanians in tbe same house. This isn't racism. Unless you want to call the e.u racist. You've fallen Into the trap most people did. Trying tk use this interview as proof of racism. Romanians and German are not a race. But also. You would rather live next to a family of 2 parents and 2 children than 20 men of any country. It just so happened that he was using Romania because eof e.u atsts on organised crime. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left have no shame in calling people they do not like whatever they like.
It's true. I don't like racists, and I have no shame in calling them racists.
You've got me there."You seem to have bo shame in calling people racist....who aren't racist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again...feel free to post a racist tweet or comment he made. Other fell into this trap a while back without realising that conversations have context and snipping things out does them no good. We await your proof of him hating black people or Asians etc." So, like, what part of I'm not playing that little game don't you get? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are not changing anyone's perception of Mr farage by not providing evidence of his racism. The truth and the facts can not be hidden. I have yet to encounter anyone on this thread whose opinion would be changed by evidence of it. Just people who want to cast doubt on it by tying the argument up in semantics and qualifications while subtly feeding in the idea that hey, maybe he's got a few good points about such and such an ethnic group, etc etc. Like I said, not my first rodeo. If anyone here genuinely thought he was a decent human being they'd have spoken up about it. Everyone knows he's a shitbag." Brother i pick my own friends and I want to be your friend. Show me something so I can at least stand by you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That theory of theirs might work if the EU bought everything in bulk for all member countries and when delivered had it distributed it around the members. I don't think this is what happens but maybe it is. Still not heard an explanation why it was possible for the UK to strike identical deals post brexit to what it had pre brexit given it is now a single country. Or why somehow, being identical means less beneficial So firstly the UK didn't broker identical deals. They're continuity agreements. The pro-Brexit narrative would have it as evidence of the success of the endeavour, I don't have the energy or interest to keep explaining why it's not, other than to address your second question. If you assume that the only cost of trading is the list price of imported goods then sure, a continuity deal is just as good as the deal we had when in the EU. But you'll notice that all the arguments for Brexit being a success focus with very few exceptions on this specific subtotal and essentially pretend that overheads, peripheral costs and costs other than monetary just don't exist. We as a nation used to think that those costs were significant enough to justify at least part of the annual £18Bn we were paying in EU dues. Why? Because it was offset by the economic benefit of having those costs shared by the trading bloc. Now, all this being said, it is true that a tremendous amount of work and care (on all sides, not just the UK) has gone into mitigating the negative effects of Brexit, because it's not like other territories were going to stop trading with us, let alone punish us, for making a however ill-advised decision. That's not how commerce works. Thanks to this we are not doing all that badly, all things considered. But again, does that mean Brexit was the right thing to do, or was it a mistake that took a tremendous and ongoing effort to adjust for, and without which we might be in a way better position, both economically and to influence the fates of our former trade allies?" It was the UK that negotiated to have the same terms as a single country that it used to get as part of the eu. If you call it continuity agreement or trade deal the outcome is the same in that all these other countries gave the UK identical terms as it gave the entire EU. This is not the same as was claimed that the UK could not hope to get the same terms once it left as that is exactly what we managed to do. The trade deals in question are with non EU countries so the change between uk and eu paperwork is not relevant. You have however confirmed in the last bit of your post something that others said before in that other countries would not stop trading with the UK and business will do what they do best and find solutions along with the government's. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
