StephenH
David Ginola
You've lost me?
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
You've lost me?
I was being a spelling/grammar Nazi!
StephenH
David Ginola
Now I know why..........dyslexia rules with me or should that be dislectcia
Glenda's Legs
Paul Walsh
Found myself desperately scrabbling for the remote control this evening as soon as I heard the opening music. Can't stand it. Didn't think my dislike of Gove could increase. It just has.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
Two questions re. Eu exit.
1) Should MPs represent how people voted or what they actually want? So take the employees of the Nissan car factory. They are now upset no one explained Brisket means that their jobs maybe in peril.
2) Almost exactly one third of the UK population voted for Brisket. How should MPs represent those that didn't vote or voted to remain? Or should they not represent their best interests?
The context for this is that the government position is the UK will be 4% poorer with an exit that sees us stay in the single market. Outside the single market the figure is 6 or 8% poorer. There is a contradiction here, as imo people didn't vote to be poorer, so what should the government represent?
A third question is whether money is everything. Are we as a nation now more interested in our social make up, than we are about how rich we are?
1) Should MPs represent how people voted or what they actually want? So take the employees of the Nissan car factory. They are now upset no one explained Brisket means that their jobs maybe in peril.
2) Almost exactly one third of the UK population voted for Brisket. How should MPs represent those that didn't vote or voted to remain? Or should they not represent their best interests?
The context for this is that the government position is the UK will be 4% poorer with an exit that sees us stay in the single market. Outside the single market the figure is 6 or 8% poorer. There is a contradiction here, as imo people didn't vote to be poorer, so what should the government represent?
A third question is whether money is everything. Are we as a nation now more interested in our social make up, than we are about how rich we are?
Last edited:
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
What May did say is that we won't compromise on controlling UK immigration and UK laws. Which if true, effectively means "Hard Brexit". She didn't rule out paying into the EU however, so maybe the Conservatives think that we can gain access to the single market by paying a fee to trade. I doubt it will wash with EU members. But maybe we'll get partial trading access in this way. Still some tariffs, but we'll pay to have preferential trading terms and the EU can benefit from trading with us. If the EU say do one to this proposition, then this whole Brexit gonads may blow up. Because people in the UK don't want to be significantly poorer as a result of Brexit.
The only people who'll do well out of hard Brexit, where we're out the single market, are those who'll cut international deals, say with Russian etc. Those establishment Conservative types who like a quick deal to remain 'rich and established'. London might look like another Zurich. A place outside of European controls. The place to come to sign non-EU controlled arms contracts, or to sell your wears if you are from a dodgy states the EU won't touch. There will be a fast buck for those willing.
Last edited:
I think that pretty much all of that post is very speculative at best. It's reminiscent of so many recent BBC articles where the author cherry picks the worst possible parts of any deal, applies the worst possible outcome to each of them and then assumes it all as likely.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
How do you see Brexit playing out now, in light of the PMs latest comments? They pushed the pound to lows against the dollar and euro. Just markets twitching or a logical repricing of the UK with hard brexit on the horizon?
I think it's an opening bargaining position like everything else being said at the moment.
The final agreement will look very little like either side is currently insisting because that's what happens in negotiations.
I've already said what I expect to happen a few posts back and I think both our own PM and the leaders of the main EU countries would all have to be pretty stupid for the end result to be too far from that.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
Except the UK has far more to lose than the EU. They lose one market, a close but relatively small market. We lose 27. Their bargaining position is far far stronger. If we don't accept their terms e.g. free movement, why should they acquiesce? Even a quota system for immigration wouldn't fly as there is no president for it. The UK is going to have to accept poorer trading terms with the EU than it currently has. Would you agree?
Last edited:
Put yourself in the position of the leader of one of Europe's major powers.
Not trading with the UK will drop GDP, it will cause the loss of jobs, and it will increase the cost of products and services bought from the UK. Weighed against that is....... What exactly? Some silly notion of togetherness and federalism?
It really doesn't matter if their hand is stronger (and I'd debate that it's not much stronger at all) when they have to answer to voters that want to keep their jobs, that don't want a dip in GDP, that want UK goods and services at their current prices. All against a backdrop of the same anti-federal pressures coming from the right in their own countries.
We have set out our opening position, they have set out theirs. The result will obviously be in the middle and anything in the middle is really nothing to panic about. Doing so is just scaremongering like the BBC in the hope that they can sway public opinion to meet what they want.
I think
I think most leaders would see the breakup of the EU as a greater risk to a drop in GDP, if they are to give the UK preferential terms this would be more likely. This is why I think your opinion is optimistic and I believe unrealistic.
In the longer term they will be thinking that a number of foreign manufacturers will be investing in plants in the EU over the UK. they will also be optimistic that a large proportion of financial services supporting EU transactions will move onshore.
There are risks on both sides but from what the EU members / ministers are saying I think they will see the breakup of the EU as a greater risk if they give preferential deal to the UK. There or four freedoms the EU is built on, historically these are non-negotiable and everything being said on the EU's side is reinforcing this. They just stood their ground with the Swiss who also had a referendum re movement of people and they only have access for insurance not full financial services.
The EU is a trading bloc, you agree to their rules and you get the benefits of the bloc. I am sure they could relax the rules for a number of countries and this would increase GDP in the short term, they do not however as they believe this is not benefitial in the long term. I can not see why they would treat the UK any differently. You want access to the market for your goods and (importantly) services, you need to accept free movement.
I think most leaders would see the breakup of the EU as a greater risk to a drop in GDP, if they are to give the UK preferential terms this would be more likely. This is why I think your opinion is optimistic and I believe unrealistic.
In the longer term they will be thinking that a number of foreign manufacturers will be investing in plants in the EU over the UK. they will also be optimistic that a large proportion of financial services supporting EU transactions will move onshore.
There are risks on both sides but from what the EU members / ministers are saying I think they will see the breakup of the EU as a greater risk if they give preferential deal to the UK. There or four freedoms the EU is built on, historically these are non-negotiable and everything being said on the EU's side is reinforcing this. They just stood their ground with the Swiss who also had a referendum re movement of people and they only have access for insurance not full financial services.
The EU is a trading bloc, you agree to their rules and you get the benefits of the bloc. I am sure they could relax the rules for a number of countries and this would increase GDP in the short term, they do not however as they believe this is not benefitial in the long term. I can not see why they would treat the UK any differently. You want access to the market for your goods and (importantly) services, you need to accept free movement.
Last edited:
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
Hold on...serious Delusions of Grandeur. Their GDP is not going to drop with some tariffs in place. We have 60m consumers. EU 500m odd.
If you have a 10% tariff on a BMW, UK consumers will still buy BMWs. The pound has dropped 10% (which is effectively a 10% price rise anyway). Most tariff are far less, 10% on cars in one of the highest. So a small tariff on products they sell to us will not greatly affect their jobs or GDP, as we'll pay it provided we can't buy cheaper elsewhere.
However, for us, it means that a large proportion of our imports will go up in price, albeit by small amounts. For them, a very small proportion of exports will go up in price and be less competitive with non-EU products. But a tiny tiny amount.
In negotiations, why does it not matter if one side's hand is stronger? Surely its key to any negotiation?
We want to sell services I am no expert but believe this is not covered WTO agreement where as the goods that the EU wish to export are. This is an important distinction and will be key in the negotiations.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
...yes the UK is a service based economy, and there is no agreement for services. I forget the % but most of our trade and expertise is in the service sector.
It would seem odd, but at the moment, if you wish to buy a service from the US, while in Europe, can you? There must be something in place...
Last edited:
parklane1
Tony Galvin
Well he is on teletext which explains a lot to some.
