|
Post by wagsastokie on Mar 2, 2020 17:27:45 GMT
Perhaps the Guardian has an agenda. Perhaps we put too much store by trade deals? Somehow, I can't imagine us buying much from the US. I think the idea is we sell them a lot more The colonials quite like a union jack label
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Mar 2, 2020 19:35:46 GMT
Not really sure how you've come up with that based only on a passport colour reference. In any case, we are where we are, Brexit has happened and we should be looking forward and not backward. We also need to be realistic. This notion that we're in a position to tell the EU to fuck off is just naive, and unlike Australia and Canada we are a direct competitor to the EU and it's shared resources. We won't get a good deal with the EU no matter how hard a line we take in negotiations. We either give up all the things we Brexited for (for a decent deal), or we get a no-thrills basic deal. All this political posturing is also laughable. It's like the past 3 years hasn't happened and all of a sudden some people are shocked, surprised and outraged by the situation we've found ourselves in. As far as I'm concerned it's simply a case of 'stop your fucking whining, don't pretend like you didn't know this would happen, and get on with it'. I seem to recall that Remainers were the ones who kept bringing up the Empire( and coloured passports) and then trying to make out it was something that Brexiteers were concerned with. I'm not saying that we should tell anyone to "fuck off". We should negotiate in good faith , just like any two independent "countries" respecting each other's independence.....irrespective of our geographic location , particularly in a global world. I'm not whining. Im not shocked nor surprised. Fish as well, don't forget the fish!
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Mar 2, 2020 19:37:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Mar 2, 2020 19:58:17 GMT
The government are going to war with the facilitators of our trade negotiations. In years to come we ought to do a Cromwell on Bonzo, Cummings, Nigel & Cameron. Dig the £@#&ers up, behead them & put their heads on spikes outside the Tower.
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Mar 2, 2020 20:00:31 GMT
The government are going to war with the facilitators of our trade negotiations. In years to come we ought to do a Cromwell on Bonzo, Cummings, Nigel & Cameron. Dig the £@#&ers up, behead them & put their heads on spikes outside the Tower. Oh dear...
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Mar 2, 2020 20:03:08 GMT
The government are going to war with the facilitators of our trade negotiations. In years to come we ought to do a Cromwell on Bonzo, Cummings, Nigel & Cameron. Dig the £@#&ers up, behead them & put their heads on spikes outside the Tower. Oh dear... Imitation is the greatest form of flatteryXx
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 2, 2020 20:20:48 GMT
I seem to recall that Remainers were the ones who kept bringing up the Empire( and coloured passports) and then trying to make out it was something that Brexiteers were concerned with. I'm not saying that we should tell anyone to "fuck off". We should negotiate in good faith , just like any two independent "countries" respecting each other's independence.....irrespective of our geographic location , particularly in a global world. I'm not whining. Im not shocked nor surprised. Fish as well, don't forget the fish! Quite right Red, quite right. Remiss of me. On my visits to France the choice and quality of the fish far surpasses what we have on offer.....although we do seem to be catching up a bit in later years. As an island race it should be our staple diet. Maybe fish is the future.....very environmentally friendly compared to beef isn't it?..as long as we sustain it and look after the oceans. What a resource....If the French had control, I don't think that French would readily share it, do you?
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Mar 2, 2020 20:30:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Mar 2, 2020 20:58:30 GMT
Better hope these negotiations go well, afterall as of this time next year I've already lost my right to freely live and work in 27 European countries. This, and I stand corrected 0.16% best enhance my new found sovereignty
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 2, 2020 21:10:04 GMT
Better hope these negotiations go well, afterall as of this time next year I've already lost my right to freely live and work in 27 European countries. This, and I stand corrected 0.16% best enhance my new found sovereignty Good lad
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Mar 2, 2020 22:42:53 GMT
Better hope these negotiations go well, afterall as of this time next year I've already lost my right to freely live and work in 27 European countries. This, and I stand corrected 0.16% best enhance my new found sovereignty Lewis Goodall is a Labour Activist who now, unsurprisingly, is Political Editor of BBC's Newsnight. My post was from an actual trade negotiator who has been quite Brexit sceptical. You can still work and live in any country. It's called filling in a form. As you read this more Brits live and work in Australia than live and work in the EU. Australia doesn't have a Freedom of Movement agreement with the UK.
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Mar 2, 2020 23:05:12 GMT
Better hope these negotiations go well, afterall as of this time next year I've already lost my right to freely live and work in 27 European countries. This, and I stand corrected 0.16% best enhance my new found sovereignty Lewis Goodall is a Labour Activist who now, unsurprisingly, is Political Editor of BBC's Newsnight. My post was from an actual trade negotiator who has been quite Brexit sceptical. You can still work and live in any country. It's called filling in a form. As you read this more Brits live and work in Australia than live and work in the EU. Australia doesn't have a Freedom of Movement agreement with the UK. I would take your Lewis Goodall / 'actual trade negotiator' arguement with more enthusiasm if they were not stating the exact same figures. And thank you for the advise on filling in a form there is a bit of a difference between moving to Spain freely and moving to Aus through their point based system though Just as a side note as we are never going to agree, (and there is nothing wrong with that - I've expressed my thoughts on your posts before and I find you to be a dedicated conservative Brexit poster who never hides away) can you explain to me how you can be enthusiastic over a potential 0.16% gain to an estimate of anywhere between 3-5% potential loss?
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Mar 3, 2020 0:28:53 GMT
Lewis Goodall is a Labour Activist who now, unsurprisingly, is Political Editor of BBC's Newsnight. My post was from an actual trade negotiator who has been quite Brexit sceptical. You can still work and live in any country. It's called filling in a form. As you read this more Brits live and work in Australia than live and work in the EU. Australia doesn't have a Freedom of Movement agreement with the UK. I would take your Lewis Goodall / 'actual trade negotiator' arguement with more enthusiasm if they were not stating the exact same figures. And thank you for the advise on filling in a form there is a bit of a difference between moving to Spain freely and moving to Aus through their point based system though Just as a side note as we are never going to agree, (and there is nothing wrong with that - I've expressed my thoughts on your posts before and I find you to be a dedicated conservative Brexit poster who never hides away) can you explain to me how you can be enthusiastic over a potential 0.16% gain to an estimate of anywhere between 3-5% potential loss? Lewis Goodall is wrong to say a 0.16 improvement in GDP is "negligible". The trade negotiator I posted says 0.16% is huge. Same figures, different truth. If you think that you can move to Spain without filling in a form then think again. The 0.16% is an increase in overall GDP. The potential loss of 3%-5% is to the rate of growth in GDP not overall GDP. We all still get richer but maybe not quite at the same rate. 97%-95% not 100%. Over 15 years. Maybe.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Mar 3, 2020 5:26:57 GMT
I would take your Lewis Goodall / 'actual trade negotiator' arguement with more enthusiasm if they were not stating the exact same figures. And thank you for the advise on filling in a form there is a bit of a difference between moving to Spain freely and moving to Aus through their point based system though Just as a side note as we are never going to agree, (and there is nothing wrong with that - I've expressed my thoughts on your posts before and I find you to be a dedicated conservative Brexit poster who never hides away) can you explain to me how you can be enthusiastic over a potential 0.16% gain to an estimate of anywhere between 3-5% potential loss? Lewis Goodall is wrong to say a 0.16 improvement in GDP is "negligible". The trade negotiator I posted says 0.16% is huge. Same figures, different truth. If you think that you can move to Spain without filling in a form then think again. The 0.16% is an increase in overall GDP. The potential loss of 3%-5% is to the rate of growth in GDP not overall GDP. We all still get richer but maybe not quite at the same rate. 97%-95% not 100%. Over 15 years. Maybe. Not sure you got your last paragraph right as it seems to contradict itself. A loss of 3-5% in gdp 'growth' would put us at a decline. Our gdp growth rate is close to zero (0.3%) and this 3-5% would not be a percentage of that 0.3, it would come off it. As a country we would get poorer and go into a recession with the growth rate declining by 3-5% as it would put us somewhere between -2.7 to -4.7 gdp growth. That's how I see it anyway. I'm no economist.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 3, 2020 7:10:17 GMT
All. I read that document. The 0.16% is an annualized estimate meaning potentially, after 15 years, the difference to GDP could be about 2.5%.
Some of the reporting in the press has been a bit illiterate on this point particularly in relation to comparison with various trade arrangements with the EU.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 3, 2020 7:22:16 GMT
Lewis Goodall is wrong to say a 0.16 improvement in GDP is "negligible". The trade negotiator I posted says 0.16% is huge. Same figures, different truth. If you think that you can move to Spain without filling in a form then think again. The 0.16% is an increase in overall GDP. The potential loss of 3%-5% is to the rate of growth in GDP not overall GDP. We all still get richer but maybe not quite at the same rate. 97%-95% not 100%. Over 15 years. Maybe. Not sure you got your last paragraph right as it seems to contradict itself. A loss of 3-5% in gdp 'growth' would put us at a decline. Our gdp growth rate is close to zero (0.3%) and this 3-5% would not be a percentage of that 0.3, it would come off it. As a country we would get poorer and go into a recession with the growth rate declining by 3-5% as it would put us somewhere between -2.7 to -4.7 gdp growth. That's how I see it anyway. I'm no economist. Both of you are wrong on this. The impact assessments in various arrangements with the EU are looking at changes to GDP over a longer period (usually about 15 years). Annualized this would be slower growth of around 0.3% per annum. This would be the correct number to use to compare it with the US-UK scenario. Of course, economics is an imperfect science so all the assessments could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Mar 3, 2020 7:35:31 GMT
Not sure you got your last paragraph right as it seems to contradict itself. A loss of 3-5% in gdp 'growth' would put us at a decline. Our gdp growth rate is close to zero (0.3%) and this 3-5% would not be a percentage of that 0.3, it would come off it. As a country we would get poorer and go into a recession with the growth rate declining by 3-5% as it would put us somewhere between -2.7 to -4.7 gdp growth. That's how I see it anyway. I'm no economist. Both of you are wrong on this. The impact assessments in various arrangements with the EU are looking at changes to GDP over a longer period (usually about 15 years). Annualized this would be slower growth of around 0.3% per annum. This would be the correct number to use to compare it with the US-UK scenario. Of course, economics is an imperfect science so all the assessments could be wrong. The 0.3% I quoted was our gdp growth in 2019. It's not preeditive. I'm saying that if gdp growth declines by 3 to 5% then we go into a recession after two quarters of negativity.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 3, 2020 7:47:15 GMT
Both of you are wrong on this. The impact assessments in various arrangements with the EU are looking at changes to GDP over a longer period (usually about 15 years). Annualized this would be slower growth of around 0.3% per annum. This would be the correct number to use to compare it with the US-UK scenario. Of course, economics is an imperfect science so all the assessments could be wrong. The 0.3% I quoted was our gdp growth in 2019. It's not preeditive. I'm saying that if gdp growth declines by 3 to 5% then we go into a recession after two quarters of negativity. Sorry but you’re confusing annualized and quarterly GDP figures. UK annual growth figure was 1.1% in 2019. The 3-5% estimates are absolutely not an annual figure. It’s compounded over a longer period (I think 15 years). Assuming ‘on trend’ growth (about 2% per annum), the impact in various non full-membership scenarios is slower but continuing GDP growth.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Mar 3, 2020 8:45:14 GMT
The 0.3% I quoted was our gdp growth in 2019. It's not preeditive. I'm saying that if gdp growth declines by 3 to 5% then we go into a recession after two quarters of negativity. Sorry but you’re confusing annualized and quarterly GDP figures. UK annual growth figure was 1.1% in 2019. The 3-5% estimates are absolutely not an annual figure. It’s compounded over a longer period (I think 15 years). Assuming ‘on trend’ growth (about 2% per annum), the impact in various non full-membership scenarios is slower but continuing GDP growth. Yes. I missed the 15 year period off the 0.16% figure relating to the UK-US deal and of course the 3%-5% reduction in growth is compounded over the same period. Yours was more clear The government has estimated a post-Brexit trade deal with the United States would boost the UK economy by 0.16% over the next 15 years.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 3, 2020 8:48:12 GMT
The 0.3% I quoted was our gdp growth in 2019. It's not preeditive. I'm saying that if gdp growth declines by 3 to 5% then we go into a recession after two quarters of negativity. Sorry but you’re confusing annualized and quarterly GDP figures. UK annual growth figure was 1.1% in 2019. The 3-5% estimates are absolutely not an annual figure. It’s compounded over a longer period (I think 15 years). Assuming ‘on trend’ growth (about 2% per annum), the impact in various non full-membership scenarios is slower but continuing GDP growth. Absolutely spot on and these 15 year forecasts are from people who couldnt forecast 15 days into the future based on assumptions on trade deals we will end up with. Even the worst of worst case scenarios still show gdp growth.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Mar 3, 2020 8:49:12 GMT
The 0.3% I quoted was our gdp growth in 2019. It's not preeditive. I'm saying that if gdp growth declines by 3 to 5% then we go into a recession after two quarters of negativity. Sorry but you’re confusing annualized and quarterly GDP figures. UK annual growth figure was 1.1% in 2019. The 3-5% estimates are absolutely not an annual figure. It’s compounded over a longer period (I think 15 years). Assuming ‘on trend’ growth (about 2% per annum), the impact in various non full-membership scenarios is slower but continuing GDP growth. Yeah, I didn't read any articles. I just went off the post I replied to and a quick google search for the UK GDP rate in 2019. Anyway, not important.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 3, 2020 9:30:07 GMT
That article is shit because it doesn’t make clear the difference between a compounded figure over 15 years and an annual change. One of the big problems with Brexit is that Politics Reporters have to write about financial/economic matters and they’re really not very good at it.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 3, 2020 9:34:59 GMT
Sorry but you’re confusing annualized and quarterly GDP figures. UK annual growth figure was 1.1% in 2019. The 3-5% estimates are absolutely not an annual figure. It’s compounded over a longer period (I think 15 years). Assuming ‘on trend’ growth (about 2% per annum), the impact in various non full-membership scenarios is slower but continuing GDP growth. Absolutely spot on and these 15 year forecasts are from people who couldnt forecast 15 days into the future based on assumptions on trade deals we will end up with. Even the worst of worst case scenarios still show gdp growth. To be fair to economists they usually make their best efforts given the tools available to them. Only the famous ‘project fear’ Treasury report was really poor (from the papers that I’ve read). The rest are OK if you understand that they inherently rely on lots of uncertain assumptions. In this case, as always, the problems lies in the way it’s being reported.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 3, 2020 9:38:34 GMT
Sorry but you’re confusing annualized and quarterly GDP figures. UK annual growth figure was 1.1% in 2019. The 3-5% estimates are absolutely not an annual figure. It’s compounded over a longer period (I think 15 years). Assuming ‘on trend’ growth (about 2% per annum), the impact in various non full-membership scenarios is slower but continuing GDP growth. Yeah, I didn't read any articles. I just went off the post I replied to and a quick google search for the UK GDP rate in 2019. Anyway, not important. No worries.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Mar 3, 2020 9:42:39 GMT
That article is shit because it doesn’t make clear the difference between a compounded figure over 15 years and an annual change. One of the big problems with Brexit is that Politics Reporters have to write about financial/economic matters and they’re really not very good at it. Yes they want to sell papers and many/all have a political opinion that they try to impose into the story by selective facts and omitting some information. I only just posted it to demonstrate the 15 year period.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 3, 2020 16:08:21 GMT
I am shocked the jumped up little twat was just making it up as he went along.
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Mar 3, 2020 16:37:16 GMT
I would take your Lewis Goodall / 'actual trade negotiator' arguement with more enthusiasm if they were not stating the exact same figures. And thank you for the advise on filling in a form there is a bit of a difference between moving to Spain freely and moving to Aus through their point based system though Just as a side note as we are never going to agree, (and there is nothing wrong with that - I've expressed my thoughts on your posts before and I find you to be a dedicated conservative Brexit poster who never hides away) can you explain to me how you can be enthusiastic over a potential 0.16% gain to an estimate of anywhere between 3-5% potential loss? Lewis Goodall is wrong to say a 0.16 improvement in GDP is "negligible". The trade negotiator I posted says 0.16% is huge. Same figures, different truth. If you think that you can move to Spain without filling in a form then think again. The 0.16% is an increase in overall GDP. The potential loss of 3%-5% is to the rate of growth in GDP not overall GDP. We all still get richer but maybe not quite at the same rate. 97%-95% not 100%. Over 15 years. Maybe. Seems this thread has moved on throughout the day. Are we all clear now that both of these estimates are over a 15 year projection period. Estimates will include a 0.16% growth from potential UK-US trade deal and in comparison a no deal UK-EU deal puts a growth reduction of 3.5-5%.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Mar 3, 2020 17:47:28 GMT
All the debate about economic forcasts is eyewash. No one has any idea of what will happen in 12 months.
You have a better chance of predicting the weather next year.
Some years ago a study was done on how accurate all the economic forcasters were. All were wrong and the most accurate was found to be the UK treasury.
One thing everyone is agreed on is that growth will be faster outside the EU than inside the EU, who have issued a report that over 90% of growth in the next 50 years will be outside the EU, and is the main driving force for the EU to establish trade agreements with other countries.
We are outside the EU and can customise trade agreements that suit our economy not be biased towards Germany and France. There is a massive imbalance in the economies of Germany and say Greece, Spain, and Italy which is expected to go into recession. (Assuming the predictions are right!) This imbalance will be driven further by the Brussels beaurocrats who have no concern with the huge unemployment in some countries and simply expect people to go and find jobs in another country.
Leaving the EU gives us a great opportunity to restructure our economy, with us having record employment levels and the lowest unemployment for over 40 years. We need to invest in being more self-sufficient in food production, medicines, and IT. We have massive advantages over other countries with our large economy, 60 million people, our global position, our own currency, the English language, and the natural talents of our nations for inventiveness, ingenuity, sense of fair play, and be generally hard working, whilst able to excel in the arts and sport.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Mar 3, 2020 18:42:34 GMT
Lewis Goodall is wrong to say a 0.16 improvement in GDP is "negligible". The trade negotiator I posted says 0.16% is huge. Same figures, different truth. If you think that you can move to Spain without filling in a form then think again. The 0.16% is an increase in overall GDP. The potential loss of 3%-5% is to the rate of growth in GDP not overall GDP. We all still get richer but maybe not quite at the same rate. 97%-95% not 100%. Over 15 years. Maybe. Seems this thread has moved on throughout the day. Are we all clear now that both of these estimates are over a 15 year projection period. Estimates will include a 0.16% growth from potential UK-US trade deal and in comparison a no deal UK-EU deal puts a growth reduction of 3.5-5%. An estimated 0.16% increase in overall GDP over a 15 year period from the proposed UK-US FTA. An estimated, compounded 3%-5% decrease in the rate of growth of GDP over the same period based on 2% GDP growth per annum, between the UK and the EU.
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Mar 3, 2020 19:15:26 GMT
Seems this thread has moved on throughout the day. Are we all clear now that both of these estimates are over a 15 year projection period. Estimates will include a 0.16% growth from potential UK-US trade deal and in comparison a no deal UK-EU deal puts a growth reduction of 3.5-5%. An estimated 0.16% increase in overall GDP over a 15 year period from the proposed UK-US FTA. An estimated, compounded 3%-5% decrease in the rate of growth of GDP over the same period based on 2% GDP growth per annum, between the UK and the EU. We got there in the end 😄 And after all this we shouldn't even be looking at the impact of GDP, we should be discussing per capita! But that is for another day, I reckon. Time for a well earned beer Roj or what?
|
|