|
Post by followyoudown on Aug 16, 2022 15:24:31 GMT
The only ones gaining from Brexit are the Dutch He even says its the energy price rise, I have severe doubts that someone who just took a decision to close his business is pboning up LBC a few days later, he can't have informed staff to go on national radio and give out enough details that the business could be identified would be a rather interesting way of conducting business. The cost of making 900 people redundant closing 11 sites recruiting and training 900 people in holland as well as opening / fitting out a new site i'd say £8-10m on the basis energy is capped at 5.5% forever......
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Aug 16, 2022 16:02:51 GMT
Really where is the CPTPP parliament ? How much do we have to pay in a year ? What are the freedom of movement arrangements ? Here's the thing if the EU went back to just being a trading block as it was when we joined I doubt many would object to being a member of it still. But i thought people wanted to be a sovereign nation? Not being ruled by unelected democrats etc.....
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 16, 2022 16:21:59 GMT
Re CPTPP:
Economist José Gabriel Palma has criticized the treaty for severely restricting the sovereignty of the signatories. Signatories are subject to international courts and have restrictions on what their state-owned enterprises can do. According to Palma the treaty makes it difficult for countries to implement policies aimed to diversify exports thus becoming a so-called middle income trap.
Trump took them out of the CPTPP because it restricted US sovereignty too much and didn't favour the US enough for his liking.
Ouch....wasn't sovereignty just about the last thing keeping Brexiteers' heads above the bullshit?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Aug 16, 2022 16:26:10 GMT
Really where is the CPTPP parliament ? How much do we have to pay in a year ? What are the freedom of movement arrangements ? Here's the thing if the EU went back to just being a trading block as it was when we joined I doubt many would object to being a member of it still. But i thought people wanted to be a sovereign nation? Not being ruled by unelected democrats etc..... So not like the EU at all then thanks for clearing that up. Pretty sure you can't be an unelected democrat either perhaps you meant bureaucrat........
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Aug 16, 2022 16:59:18 GMT
But i thought people wanted to be a sovereign nation? Not being ruled by unelected democrats etc..... So not like the EU at all then thanks for clearing that up. Pretty sure you can't be an unelected democrat either perhaps you meant bureaucrat........ yes, bureaucrat, apologies, i was thinking of that word, no idea why i typed democrat. my point is that one of the main arguments for Brexit, was 'the people' wanted to be free of other bureaucrats making the rules, but IF we join this other trading block, and have to accept other laws etc then there's no point in having left the EU.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 16, 2022 17:52:00 GMT
Obama took US into the Pacific trade organization. Was he wrong? Trump took US out. I think people are now making up reasons for Trump's actions. If Trump had given his reasons, hands up all those who believe him. There are obviously benefits of joining any trade organization and "costs" such as agreeing to the rule book. People can make their own minds up whether there is added value in membership. Here is one view from Washington: www.cato.org/blog/5-years-later-united-states-still-paying-tpp-blunderBut as I and others have been harping on for years, the EU is not a trade group with a set of membership rules. It is a customs union, with a series of treaties committed to ever closer union, eventually becoming a united states of Europe. A parliament that moves house each month between Brussels and Strasbourg, a judicial system, a financial centre, an extremely expensive executive, the Commission, with thousands of corporation lobbyists clammering for more barriers to the rest of the world. There is now a degree of fiscal union where the Commission control the pandemic recovery fund and if you don't obey the EU rules money is withheld by the Commission. (" He who pays the piper, calls the tune.") And of course there is the dreaded Common Agricultural Policy. Eventually there will be stricter fiscal rules I believe the way Greece and Italy run their fiscal policy. Prior to the 2016 referendum Cameron sought a deal with the EU that the UK could be excluded from any further closer union. He was refused and told such an agreement was contrary to the treaties which could not all be changed. He was offered a two speed membership towards closer union, where the UK could progress more slowly, but we can all guess there would have been penalties to pay for that. I'm happy to leave it to the experts on whether or not its worth joining. If we do join and it is a limited benefit we can leave; that's sovereignty.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Aug 16, 2022 18:35:15 GMT
Obama took US into the Pacific trade organization. Was he wrong? Trump took US out. I think people are now making up reasons for Trump's actions. If Trump had given his reasons, hands up all those who believe him. There are obviously benefits of joining any trade organization and "costs" such as agreeing to the rule book. People can make their own minds up whether there is added value in membership. Here is one view from Washington: www.cato.org/blog/5-years-later-united-states-still-paying-tpp-blunderBut as I and others have been harping on for years, the EU is not a trade group with a set of membership rules. It is a customs union, with a series of treaties committed to ever closer union, eventually becoming a united states of Europe. A parliament that moves house each month between Brussels and Strasbourg, a judicial system, a financial centre, an extremely expensive executive, the Commission, with thousands of corporation lobbyists clammering for more barriers to the rest of the world. There is now a degree of fiscal union where the Commission control the pandemic recovery fund and if you don't obey the EU rules money is withheld by the Commission. (" He who pays the piper, calls the tune.") And of course there is the dreaded Common Agricultural Policy. Eventually there will be stricter fiscal rules I believe the way Greece and Italy run their fiscal policy. Prior to the 2016 referendum Cameron sought a deal with the EU that the UK could be excluded from any further closer union. He was refused and told such an agreement was contrary to the treaties which could not all be changed. He was offered a two speed membership towards closer union, where the UK could progress more slowly, but we can all guess there would have been penalties to pay for that. I'm happy to leave it to the experts on whether or not its worth joining. If we do join and it is a limited benefit we can leave; that's sovereignty. "Ever closer union" is the phrase most often trotted out by Brexiters to entreat us to 'Leave now before it's too late". So despite the UK getting it's knickers in a twist - in practice it is a phrase that has no legal significance and doesn't even refer to the governments - only 'the peoples" of the member states and as far as I can see is at best only a vague aspiration that gets cut and pasted into successive treaties. Nevertheless we wanted that spelling out - and so it was What was offered to the UK was as follows:- “It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom” Further - contrary to what Farage stated - that 70% of our laws are made by the EU - it was closer to 10% at the time we left. How that would compare with joining another trade organisation I have no idea - and I don't suppose anyone else does either. However the fact remains that spooking the electorate with what might happen had we stayed members of the EU suspiciously resembles - dare I suggest - a version of "Project Fear".
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 17, 2022 2:03:57 GMT
Obama took US into the Pacific trade organization. Was he wrong? Trump took US out. I think people are now making up reasons for Trump's actions. If Trump had given his reasons, hands up all those who believe him. There are obviously benefits of joining any trade organization and "costs" such as agreeing to the rule book. People can make their own minds up whether there is added value in membership. Here is one view from Washington: www.cato.org/blog/5-years-later-united-states-still-paying-tpp-blunderBut as I and others have been harping on for years, the EU is not a trade group with a set of membership rules. It is a customs union, with a series of treaties committed to ever closer union, eventually becoming a united states of Europe. A parliament that moves house each month between Brussels and Strasbourg, a judicial system, a financial centre, an extremely expensive executive, the Commission, with thousands of corporation lobbyists clammering for more barriers to the rest of the world. There is now a degree of fiscal union where the Commission control the pandemic recovery fund and if you don't obey the EU rules money is withheld by the Commission. (" He who pays the piper, calls the tune.") And of course there is the dreaded Common Agricultural Policy. Eventually there will be stricter fiscal rules I believe the way Greece and Italy run their fiscal policy. Prior to the 2016 referendum Cameron sought a deal with the EU that the UK could be excluded from any further closer union. He was refused and told such an agreement was contrary to the treaties which could not all be changed. He was offered a two speed membership towards closer union, where the UK could progress more slowly, but we can all guess there would have been penalties to pay for that. I'm happy to leave it to the experts on whether or not its worth joining. If we do join and it is a limited benefit we can leave; that's sovereignty. "Ever closer union" is the phrase most often trotted out by Brexiters to entreat us to 'Leave now before it's too late". So despite the UK getting it's knickers in a twist - in practice it is a phrase that has no legal significance and doesn't even refer to the governments - only 'the peoples" of the member states and as far as I can see is at best only a vague aspiration that gets cut and pasted into successive treaties. Nevertheless we wanted that spelling out - and so it was What was offered to the UK was as follows:- “It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom” Further - contrary to what Farage stated - that 70% of our laws are made by the EU - it was closer to 10% at the time we left. How that would compare with joining another trade organisation I have no idea - and I don't suppose anyone else does either. However the fact remains that spooking the electorate with what might happen had we stayed members of the EU suspiciously resembles - dare I suggest - a version of "Project Fear". Excellent response Mr Beaver but it will fall on deaf ears of Evangelical Brexiteers who are "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma" As circumstances or events change so too does the rational for Brexit. It is a Cultism dedicated to an ever changing Doctrine The latest bug up Mr Cokes ass is CAP even though the UK replacement ELMS who those it is being foisted upon (which the HoC describe as being "a wing and a prayer ") reject as being inferior to CAP It is akin to a previous age when Missionaries brought Christianity to African "Heathens" in the misguided belief they were "Do Gooders" ahdb.org.uk/trade-and-policy/EU-CAP-is-changingI'm not expecting a reply from Mr Coke anytime soon to a previous post of mine, and it is entirely his perogative and perhaps due to time constraints, in which he attempted to deny logic and indeed Gravity In my referenced post I pointed out his previous obsession (and Raison D'etre for Brexit) Sovereignty, obviously before CAP became the new Mantra, had been surrendered by Government Neutering Parliament by refusing debate of Australia Trade Agreement Furthermore the Australia Trade Agreement includes "Secret Provisions " which binds future Governments hands, a position in complete opposition to which Brexiteers claimed was an essential reason for leaving EU. You couldn't make some of this Shit/ Hypocrisy Up. With regard to UK joining CPTPP it is completely disingenuous to contend that it is any less onerous in ceding "Sovereignty " if that is your bag, than membership of EU. If you join a Club you abide by the Rules. The essential difference is that Food Standards as an example are much lower in CPTTP Countries than EU (This will obviously not disturb Waga who will undoubtedly be looking forward to some Vietnamese Balut) To a large extent "Sovereignty" has already been conceded by UK Government in the "Secret Provisions " I mentioned above in the Australia Trade Agreement which would allow for instance Australian Companies to sue UK Government in Secret Courts if UK Law prohibited Australian Companies Exporting to UK, so much for "Sovereignty " Joining CPTPP would only extend the number of Countries able to do this as CPTPP also includes these "Secret Chapters" The CPTPP SPS chapter also provides additional avenues for Parties (CPTPP Countries) to request (UK) the removal of regulation (UK Law) that obstructs exports. A Committee oversees the implementation of the chapter, and there are regular meetings where Parties can raise concerns about other parties’ regulation. Parties are encouraged to acknowledge that their regulations are equivalent, and required, upon request, to explain the objective and rationale of their regulations (Article 7.8(2). None of these requirements bind the UK to a particular course of action. However, cumulatively, they will likely expose UK regulators (Parliament) and officials to new pressures. This again points to the importance of using CPTPP accession negotiations to identify the strategic interests of CPTPP Members in relation to UK SPS regulations blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/publications/cptpp-and-agri-food-regulation-crossing-the-eu-exit-rubicon/Another lie that Mr Coke (in his post above) and Brexiteers generally pontificate is that Cameron was rebuffed in his demands for no further Closer Union for UK. You quoted partially from the Agreement "A new settlement for the United Kingdom within the EU" The full text of the Agreement is here www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/%3Furi%3DCELEX:52016XG0223(01)%26from%3DEN&ved=2ahUKEwiM58PO3cz5AhXmSkEAHcrtD_oQFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1BI0rDfJ6fNURBdRN0qFwEThe Tenets of Brexit are systematically being exposed as hypocrisy while in the meantime we await the Sun readers to provide Jacob Rich-Snob with the Brexit Benefits
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 17, 2022 7:07:06 GMT
Obama took US into the Pacific trade organization. Was he wrong? Trump took US out. I think people are now making up reasons for Trump's actions. If Trump had given his reasons, hands up all those who believe him. There are obviously benefits of joining any trade organization and "costs" such as agreeing to the rule book. People can make their own minds up whether there is added value in membership. Here is one view from Washington: www.cato.org/blog/5-years-later-united-states-still-paying-tpp-blunderBut as I and others have been harping on for years, the EU is not a trade group with a set of membership rules. It is a customs union, with a series of treaties committed to ever closer union, eventually becoming a united states of Europe. A parliament that moves house each month between Brussels and Strasbourg, a judicial system, a financial centre, an extremely expensive executive, the Commission, with thousands of corporation lobbyists clammering for more barriers to the rest of the world. There is now a degree of fiscal union where the Commission control the pandemic recovery fund and if you don't obey the EU rules money is withheld by the Commission. (" He who pays the piper, calls the tune.") And of course there is the dreaded Common Agricultural Policy. Eventually there will be stricter fiscal rules I believe the way Greece and Italy run their fiscal policy. Prior to the 2016 referendum Cameron sought a deal with the EU that the UK could be excluded from any further closer union. He was refused and told such an agreement was contrary to the treaties which could not all be changed. He was offered a two speed membership towards closer union, where the UK could progress more slowly, but we can all guess there would have been penalties to pay for that. I'm happy to leave it to the experts on whether or not its worth joining. If we do join and it is a limited benefit we can leave; that's sovereignty. We could leave the EU, and we did, so that absence of sovereignty argument doesn't really work, and never really did, especially taking into account what Seymour posted above about the various degrees of subsidiarity that Britain benefited from over the years. From the bullying EU!
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Aug 17, 2022 7:45:20 GMT
Obama took US into the Pacific trade organization. Was he wrong? Trump took US out. I think people are now making up reasons for Trump's actions. If Trump had given his reasons, hands up all those who believe him. There are obviously benefits of joining any trade organization and "costs" such as agreeing to the rule book. People can make their own minds up whether there is added value in membership. Here is one view from Washington: www.cato.org/blog/5-years-later-united-states-still-paying-tpp-blunderBut as I and others have been harping on for years, the EU is not a trade group with a set of membership rules. It is a customs union, with a series of treaties committed to ever closer union, eventually becoming a united states of Europe. A parliament that moves house each month between Brussels and Strasbourg, a judicial system, a financial centre, an extremely expensive executive, the Commission, with thousands of corporation lobbyists clammering for more barriers to the rest of the world. There is now a degree of fiscal union where the Commission control the pandemic recovery fund and if you don't obey the EU rules money is withheld by the Commission. (" He who pays the piper, calls the tune.") And of course there is the dreaded Common Agricultural Policy. Eventually there will be stricter fiscal rules I believe the way Greece and Italy run their fiscal policy. Prior to the 2016 referendum Cameron sought a deal with the EU that the UK could be excluded from any further closer union. He was refused and told such an agreement was contrary to the treaties which could not all be changed. He was offered a two speed membership towards closer union, where the UK could progress more slowly, but we can all guess there would have been penalties to pay for that. I'm happy to leave it to the experts on whether or not its worth joining. If we do join and it is a limited benefit we can leave; that's sovereignty. "Ever closer union" is the phrase most often trotted out by Brexiters to entreat us to 'Leave now before it's too late". So despite the UK getting it's knickers in a twist - in practice it is a phrase that has no legal significance and doesn't even refer to the governments - only 'the peoples" of the member states and as far as I can see is at best only a vague aspiration that gets cut and pasted into successive treaties. Nevertheless we wanted that spelling out - and so it was What was offered to the UK was as follows:- “It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom” Further - contrary to what Farage stated - that 70% of our laws are made by the EU - it was closer to 10% at the time we left. How that would compare with joining another trade organisation I have no idea - and I don't suppose anyone else does either. However the fact remains that spooking the electorate with what might happen had we stayed members of the EU suspiciously resembles - dare I suggest - a version of "Project Fear". I’m always sceptical of folk exchanging numbers, and quite rightly too. Because both sides are being disingenuous - meaning you are as bad as Farage in quoting 13% to his 70%. Both figures are “right” but both are nonsense. Reality Check: How much UK law comes from the EU?
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Aug 17, 2022 8:15:17 GMT
"Ever closer union" is the phrase most often trotted out by Brexiters to entreat us to 'Leave now before it's too late". So despite the UK getting it's knickers in a twist - in practice it is a phrase that has no legal significance and doesn't even refer to the governments - only 'the peoples" of the member states and as far as I can see is at best only a vague aspiration that gets cut and pasted into successive treaties. Nevertheless we wanted that spelling out - and so it was What was offered to the UK was as follows:- “It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom” Further - contrary to what Farage stated - that 70% of our laws are made by the EU - it was closer to 10% at the time we left. How that would compare with joining another trade organisation I have no idea - and I don't suppose anyone else does either. However the fact remains that spooking the electorate with what might happen had we stayed members of the EU suspiciously resembles - dare I suggest - a version of "Project Fear". I’m always sceptical of folk exchanging numbers, and quite rightly too. Because both sides are being disingenuous - meaning you are as bad as Farage in quoting 13% to his 70%. Both figures are “right” but both are nonsense. Reality Check: How much UK law comes from the EU?Nothing wrong with being sceptical nevertheless people should exchange numbers as it promps others to look further and enriches the debate. I wouldn't opt for a surgical procedure based on a fact free assurance of 'you'll be owrate' from some bloke down the pub - I'd still rather look up 'the numbers' even if different studies did come up with different conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 17, 2022 9:46:12 GMT
Obama took US into the Pacific trade organization. Was he wrong? Trump took US out. I think people are now making up reasons for Trump's actions. If Trump had given his reasons, hands up all those who believe him. There are obviously benefits of joining any trade organization and "costs" such as agreeing to the rule book. People can make their own minds up whether there is added value in membership. Here is one view from Washington: www.cato.org/blog/5-years-later-united-states-still-paying-tpp-blunderBut as I and others have been harping on for years, the EU is not a trade group with a set of membership rules. It is a customs union, with a series of treaties committed to ever closer union, eventually becoming a united states of Europe. A parliament that moves house each month between Brussels and Strasbourg, a judicial system, a financial centre, an extremely expensive executive, the Commission, with thousands of corporation lobbyists clammering for more barriers to the rest of the world. There is now a degree of fiscal union where the Commission control the pandemic recovery fund and if you don't obey the EU rules money is withheld by the Commission. (" He who pays the piper, calls the tune.") And of course there is the dreaded Common Agricultural Policy. Eventually there will be stricter fiscal rules I believe the way Greece and Italy run their fiscal policy. Prior to the 2016 referendum Cameron sought a deal with the EU that the UK could be excluded from any further closer union. He was refused and told such an agreement was contrary to the treaties which could not all be changed. He was offered a two speed membership towards closer union, where the UK could progress more slowly, but we can all guess there would have been penalties to pay for that. I'm happy to leave it to the experts on whether or not its worth joining. If we do join and it is a limited benefit we can leave; that's sovereignty. "Ever closer union" is the phrase most often trotted out by Brexiters to entreat us to 'Leave now before it's too late". So despite the UK getting it's knickers in a twist - in practice it is a phrase that has no legal significance and doesn't even refer to the governments - only 'the peoples" of the member states and as far as I can see is at best only a vague aspiration that gets cut and pasted into successive treaties. Nevertheless we wanted that spelling out - and so it was What was offered to the UK was as follows:- “It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom” Further - contrary to what Farage stated - that 70% of our laws are made by the EU - it was closer to 10% at the time we left. How that would compare with joining another trade organisation I have no idea - and I don't suppose anyone else does either. However the fact remains that spooking the electorate with what might happen had we stayed members of the EU suspiciously resembles - dare I suggest - a version of "Project Fear". Thank you for your comments on "ever closer union". I agree the phrase is vague in EU treaties which I would suggest is deliberate. As you suggest there is different forms of getting closer. I remember my arguments with my father in the 70s about EEC membership. As a member of the Liberal Party I was very much in favour of membership. My father followed Benn, Shaw and Castle and used the lecture me " You cannot have economic union without political union, "they" will come to rule us one day". As things transpired with Maastricht, my dad was right. Was that his version of "project fear" in the 70s? In my post I cited the most recent incremental move to closer union, the EU pandemic recovery fund, which will be strictly controlled by the Commission. An example of fiscal union. Thank God we are not part of that. I don't see the point of debating how much law is made where. It is the principal of who has elected the people making the law. The EU Commission drafts the law (I wait for the day they introduce some devolution legislation), the EU Council of Ministers approve, and the Parliament ratify, unless they have common sense and throw it out like they did with the EU-China Investment deal, the Commission and Council tried to push through. I actually think a lot of EU law is good law and should not be interfered with.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Aug 17, 2022 10:47:31 GMT
"Ever closer union" is the phrase most often trotted out by Brexiters to entreat us to 'Leave now before it's too late". So despite the UK getting it's knickers in a twist - in practice it is a phrase that has no legal significance and doesn't even refer to the governments - only 'the peoples" of the member states and as far as I can see is at best only a vague aspiration that gets cut and pasted into successive treaties. Nevertheless we wanted that spelling out - and so it was What was offered to the UK was as follows:- “It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom” Further - contrary to what Farage stated - that 70% of our laws are made by the EU - it was closer to 10% at the time we left. How that would compare with joining another trade organisation I have no idea - and I don't suppose anyone else does either. However the fact remains that spooking the electorate with what might happen had we stayed members of the EU suspiciously resembles - dare I suggest - a version of "Project Fear". Thank you for your comments on "ever closer union". I agree the phrase is vague in EU treaties which I would suggest is deliberate. As you suggest there is different forms of getting closer. I remember my arguments with my father in the 70s about EEC membership. As a member of the Liberal Party I was very much in favour of membership. My father followed Benn, Shaw and Castle and used the lecture me " You cannot have economic union without political union, "they" will come to rule us one day". As things transpired with Maastricht, my dad was right. Was that his version of "project fear" in the 70s? In my post I cited the most recent incremental move to closer union, the EU pandemic recovery fund, which will be strictly controlled by the Commission. An example of fiscal union. Thank God we are not part of that. I don't see the point of debating how much law is made where. It is the principal of who has elected the people making the law. The EU Commission drafts the law (I wait for the day they introduce some devolution legislation), the EU Council of Ministers approve, and the Parliament ratify, unless they have common sense and throw it out like they did with the EU-China Investment deal, the Commission and Council tried to push through. I actually think a lot of EU law is good law and should not be interfered with. In terms of elected law makers, in the EU I think it is 733 of the 761 law makers are elected. Give or take the odd President who is of course not elected by people. Only the Commission members are unelected, but they are chosen by each member’s elected leader. The EU Council and the Parliament are all elected. In the UK, 650 of its 1,410 law makers are elected.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Aug 17, 2022 12:37:09 GMT
So not like the EU at all then thanks for clearing that up. Pretty sure you can't be an unelected democrat either perhaps you meant bureaucrat........ yes, bureaucrat, apologies, i was thinking of that word, no idea why i typed democrat. my point is that one of the main arguments for Brexit, was 'the people' wanted to be free of other bureaucrats making the rules, but IF we join this other trading block, and have to accept other laws etc then there's no point in having left the EU. CPTPP doesn't have any bureaucrats, a parliament, embassies or plans for an army. Any "laws" would be related to trade and trade only although I'd be surprised if we need to enact any new laws seeing how we already trade extensively with most of these countries but here's the difference on top of no £350m a week payments if the next lot in power decide CPTPP is not for us, send a letter and you're out just like Trump did, no billions of payments, no years of negotiating so once again CPTPP is nothing like the EU, just like the EU now is nothing like the one we joined.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 17, 2022 13:00:09 GMT
yes, bureaucrat, apologies, i was thinking of that word, no idea why i typed democrat. my point is that one of the main arguments for Brexit, was 'the people' wanted to be free of other bureaucrats making the rules, but IF we join this other trading block, and have to accept other laws etc then there's no point in having left the EU. CPTPP doesn't have any bureaucrats, a parliament, embassies or plans for an army. Any "laws" would be related to trade and trade only although I'd be surprised if we need to enact any new laws seeing how we already trade extensively with most of these countries but here's the difference on top of no £350m a week payments if the next lot in power decide CPTPP is not for us, send a letter and you're out just like Trump did, no billions of payments, no years of negotiating so once again CPTPP is nothing like the EU, just like the EU now is nothing like the one we joined. Erosion of sovereignty by signing up to CPTPP = OK Erosion of sovereignty by signing up to the EU = bad Perhaps that whole sovereignty thing was bollocks all along?
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 17, 2022 13:42:31 GMT
Thank you for your comments on "ever closer union". I agree the phrase is vague in EU treaties which I would suggest is deliberate. As you suggest there is different forms of getting closer. I remember my arguments with my father in the 70s about EEC membership. As a member of the Liberal Party I was very much in favour of membership. My father followed Benn, Shaw and Castle and used the lecture me " You cannot have economic union without political union, "they" will come to rule us one day". As things transpired with Maastricht, my dad was right. Was that his version of "project fear" in the 70s? In my post I cited the most recent incremental move to closer union, the EU pandemic recovery fund, which will be strictly controlled by the Commission. An example of fiscal union. Thank God we are not part of that. I don't see the point of debating how much law is made where. It is the principal of who has elected the people making the law. The EU Commission drafts the law (I wait for the day they introduce some devolution legislation), the EU Council of Ministers approve, and the Parliament ratify, unless they have common sense and throw it out like they did with the EU-China Investment deal, the Commission and Council tried to push through. I actually think a lot of EU law is good law and should not be interfered with. In terms of elected law makers, in the EU I think it is 733 of the 761 law makers are elected. Give or take the odd President who is of course not elected by people. Only the Commission members are unelected, but they are chosen by each member’s elected leader. The EU Council and the Parliament are all elected. In the UK, 650 of its 1,410 law makers are elected. Thanks for that, the difference is we can get rid of those 650 that are the ones that really matter, if we the people choose.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 17, 2022 14:02:18 GMT
CPTPP doesn't have any bureaucrats, a parliament, embassies or plans for an army. Any "laws" would be related to trade and trade only although I'd be surprised if we need to enact any new laws seeing how we already trade extensively with most of these countries but here's the difference on top of no £350m a week payments if the next lot in power decide CPTPP is not for us, send a letter and you're out just like Trump did, no billions of payments, no years of negotiating so once again CPTPP is nothing like the EU, just like the EU now is nothing like the one we joined. Erosion of sovereignty by signing up to CPTPP = OK Erosion of sovereignty by signing up to the EU = bad Perhaps that whole sovereignty thing was bollocks all along? Minimal erosion of sovereignty by signing up to CPTPP, similar to joining the EEC which I favoured = OK possibly, depending on terms and conditions. Massive erosion of sovereignty by signing up to the EU = bad We took a vote on membership and decided to leave, and go our own way in the world like most nations, and the UK is by far one of* the world's biggest, most influential, powerful, freest, democratic, and environmentally responsible. *90th percentile.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 17, 2022 15:27:59 GMT
To reply to each of your remarks in turn: A The world is entering recession. The UK GDP declined in Q2, correct, but nothing to do with Brexit. The US GDP declined in Q1 and Q2 and France's GDP stagnated in Q1 - they did not leave the EU. Germany's economy stagnated in Q2 did they leave the EU? China had a negative GDP in Q2. Falling GDP has nothing to do with Brexit and everything to do with the continued impact of the pandemic, such as microchip shortages, and the war in Ukraine both causing massive inflation of energy and food products. It is clear that inflation and interest rate rises are stifling people's expenditure. B Both facts are correct but nothing to do with Brexit. UK imports are at an all time record because of the cost of energy. You should take a look at Germany's import graph; their balance of payments is the lowest its been since the 2008 recession. The EU will always continue to be the UK's largest export and import market, but it will continue to shrink as a proportion of UK trade. I could spend the night explaining trade gravitational theory to you, but I will let you find out for yourself. C Trade is growing with non EU countries, but it is not going to boom overnight, the new trade deal with Australia is phased in over 10 years (sorry but that's jam tomorrow). D Yes, there will be a review of the second quarter from me, and an update on post Brexit Britain generally. Data is not yet fully available for Q2, and you should not pay much attention to individual months figures, they are not accurate. Whilst my natural optimism for the UK's future may come through as "jam tomorrow", I do endeavour to reports facts and events that have taken place, or in progress, and things being initiated such as investment. So in essence you agree with my Post, which is hardly surprising as I merely posted the facts that UK is entering recession which is likely to last at least 2 years and at the same time UK Trading is shrinking with the Trade Deficit at record levels. Youu have added extraneous comparators to other Countries It may surprise you but my primary concern is UK performance No requirement to explain Trade Gravitational Theory (GRT) at least to me, I agree with it entirely and it is in fact my biggest Economic Objection to Brexit. It is intuitive, even to those that do not understand GRT, that you are more likely to be successful Trading with those Countries you are Geographically and Culturally close to than those more distant and by quite a Factor according to the Theory It is only the ERG and yourself have expounded on here that Gravity can be defied and lost EU Trade can be compensated by Trade from more far flung Countries. It is hardly coincidental that 8 of the Top 10 Countries UK Exports to are in Europe The exceptions US being No 1 and China being 7th behind Ireland You acknowledge that EU will continue to be an important but declining Export Market for UK Which is hardly surprising when you introduce Trade Barriers to such an extent that One Third of UK Companies have ceased exporting to EU because it is not cost effective with increased administration It then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that EU Exports become less of the overall Export Pie due to new barriers to Trade, but under GR Theory those lost EU Exports will not be replaced by Trade with ROW so the Pie has become smaller Your C Comment: Trade is NOT growing with ROW it declined £2Bn in 2nd Quarter And let's examine UK/Australia Trade Deal the first independently negotiated Trade Deal and likely to become UK model for future Trade Deals your Jam Tomorrow assertion According to the Government’s own impact statement it would add 0.08% to GDP by 2035 Woopty Doo commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9484/And does this New found Brexit Freedom to negotiate Trade Deals enhance UK Sovereignty and restore Supremacy to UK Parliament? Well no not really because Government refused Parliamentary debate on the Agreement despite many concerns raised by Constituents and interested groups to their MPs about the Agreement www.sustainweb.org/news/jul22-australia-trade-scrutiny-crag-ends/What could Government possibly not want Parliamentarians to discuss? Maybe it's the secret provisions in the Agreement This would be binding on future Governments a boast that Brexiteers say the purpose of Brexit is to allow the Electorate to change Government to change future Policy leftfootforward.org/2021/06/tories-hint-at-secret-corporate-courts-in-uk-australia-trade-deal/The Independent Trade and Agriculture Commission TAC which advices Government on Animal Welfare, Plant Health Standards and Environment Standards as they relate to Agriculture were asked to do an impact report on the UK Australia Trade deal. It doesn't make pretty reading www.fwi.co.uk/news/australia-trade-deal-what-the-tac-report-has-to-say#:~:text=The%20TAC%20report%20confirms%20the,produced%20to%20lower%20welfare%20standards. The TAC report confirms the deal could result in the UK having to accept imports of agrifoods produced with pesticides banned in the UK, GM crops and wool from mutilated sheep.
It is also likely to increase imports of beef from feedlot systems and produced to lower welfare standards. The committee found that agri-foods from deforested land could be imported in larger quantities as well.
The Agreement will also allow the import of Hormonal Growth Treated Beef albeit labelled as such
Not great for the Environment either importing Food from deforested land and from halfway around the World but even worse news for UK Farmers who will have to compete with Australian Farmers who use much lower standards and therefore cost. Of course Government could lower Food and Environmental Standards in UK to allow UK Farmers to compete on an even playing field, it would just be one more broken promise I accept for many the vote for Brexit was on Non Economic Grounds which is a fair position to take. My contention using the UK/Australia Trade Deal as an example makes a mockery of this assertion where there is even less scrutiny and is binding on future Governments Another Unintended Consequence only peripherally discussed during the Brexit Debate is the potential breakup of the Union where much clearer majorities in Scotland and Northern-ireland voted in favour of remaining in EU than UK as a whole voted to leave.. I know you have expressed a neutral position on this previously if it were the wish of those Countries which to be fair is consistent with your position on Brexit. Others may not share your view. The impetus particularly in Scotland for Independence may gain momentum if NI effectively still within EU continues to outpace GB Economically I cannot dispute facts, but the fact is the UK has not yet actually entered a recession yet. Assuming it does it will simply be a consequence of world economics and do dispute with you that it is due to Brexit. It is perfectly logical to draw comparisons with other countries' economies; to ignore what is happening to economies such as the US, China, and Germany, three of the UK's main trading partners would be blinkered. I'm pleased that you understand the gravity model of trade and should not be surprised that you " agree with it entirely" as it suits your purpose. There is a basic intuitive logic to the theory that trade is influenced by size and distance of economies, but is it correct? I refer you to this paper that reveals flaws in the theory: it's rather long and technical so you may choose to read the conclusions first. The paper suggests that the gravity theory does not support the massive change that has occurred in world trade in recent decades. www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/230434/1/1048210502.pdfYou make the statement of lost EU trade; I don't believe there will be any significant lost EU trade except for niche markets such as food. There seems to be a fixation in the minds of those opposed to Brexit that leaving the EU means the UK stops trading with the EU. UK trade with the EU will continue to grow, albeit at a slower rate, possibly because of the gravity theory you believe in, if for no other reason. Neither is the EU going to stop trading with one of the world's major economies on its doorstep. The UK has been the "Treasure Island" for EU trade for decades. fullfact.org/europe/is-the-uk-really-the-eus-treasure-island/The UK will continue to trade heavily with the EU in goods, but when it comes to services, the UK has the opportunity to be the world's second most dominant leading trading nation after the US. But I have a much better trade "theory" for you. The EU represents less than 20% of the world GDP and is shrinking as a proportion of world GDP and is the world's slowest growing continental economy (apart from Antarctica) and will be constrained in future by demographics, Germany being a prime example. The typical growth rate of the EU has been 2% pa. UK trade with the EU has grown at 1% pa and until the referendum exhibited an increasing negative balance of payments with the EU approaching £(70) billion pa. (£(30) billion with Germany). Even while a member of the EU, UK trade has been growing at typically 2-3% with the rest of the world. I suggest it will grow faster when new trade deals are in place and we are removing/reducing EU barriers from our imports with RoW. Conversely the rest of the world, i.e. over 80% of the world economy has been growing at 3 % pa, which is 50% faster and that is an average rate of world nations. Many nations are growing very slowly if at all, whereas others like India are growing at 8%. India's economy is already as large as the UK, its population is three times greater than the EU and growing fast. There are many other countries growing fast like India, and the UK will far better placed trading with them outside of the EU, due to what you referred to as " Trade Barriers". I can't speak for others on this MB, but personally I (and my wife) are far more culturally close to our relatives in Australia and New Zealand, than my former work colleagues in Paris and IJmuiden with whom I had a strong comradeship just as I did with my Indian colleagues in Jamshedpur. Distance is not such a major issue for services trade and the type of high added value products the UK exports. To conclude my "theory" is that UK trade will grow a lot faster trading with the fastest growing economies in the larger part of the world economy, and with many of which we have a strong historical links. When I say trade is growing, I mean the general trend since the pandemic. If you look at any graph on UK trade it shows a general upward trend on goods and services exports. There are bound to be monthly and seasonal fluctuations, in June for example fuel exports to The Netherlands jumped 67%, but that is simply flash in the pan driven by the war and need to stock gas during the summer. I worked in the steel industry for most of my working life and it was customary to de-stock before the end of the financial year in March, and it was usual for customers to de-stock at the start of their financial year to reduce feedstock before summer shut-downs. It is the nature of trade to fluctuate with economic, fiscal, and seasonal cycles. The current record deficit in trade is due to the hugely increased cost of energy imports, from which the whole of Europe is also suffering. Nothing to do with Brexit. When you say, "Trade is NOT growing with ROW it declined £2Bn in 2nd Quarter" I am a bit nonplussed. The ONS released trade data on the 12th August. www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/june2022From this mine of information: In Q2 2022 Total exports increased by £12.3b to £178.6b* from £166.4b in Q1. In Q2 2022 Total goods exports increased by £10.7b to £96.7b* from £86.0b in Q1. In Q2 2022 Total services exports increased by £1.6b to £82.0b^ from £80.4b in Q1. In Q2 2022 EU goods exports increased by £6.9b to £49.4b* from £42.5b in Q1. In Q2 2022 Non EU goods exports increased by £3.8b to £47.2b^ from £43.5b in Q1. (It should be noted that the above numbers are rounded to the nearest decimal point, the data excludes precious metals, and the ONS changed the method of calculating in January which would have the effect of depressing some of January's data.) * - highest recorded values ever ^ - second highest recorded values ever We should not get too excited by the record high values as they are inflated by energy prices, and overwhelmed by record imports due to energy costs. I have not seen any data for a split on services exports between EU and non EU. I would like to know where you got the information that trade declined by £2b in Q2. Now to the subject of beef from Australia. You seem not to be aware that we import 170,000 tonnes pa of beef from Ireland, a country that has a lower Environmental Performance Index than Australia, who are ranked 17th out of 180 countries and higher than most of the EU. You are highly critical of Australia, but you seem quite happy to import from the EU which has the Common Agricultural Policy as a cornerstone policy. As we spread our dependency on imports for food, we will be less dependent on the evil CAP. I expect Australian (and in future Canadian) beef to displace imports from the EU. As for UK farmers, they have 10 years to get their act together; but there will always be a place for British beef on the British dining table and opportunities to increase beef, lamb, and pork exports, which is actually already happening. I wish some people had had the same concern for UK manufacturing industry that they seem to have for agriculture, which enjoys massive tax payers funding. As to what the Australian trade deal is worth, who knows? Prof. Minford has estimated £69 billion, 37 times more than the government economists. I personally don't know. What I do know it will not be politicians, civil servants, political advisers and consultants, newspaper correspondents, etc. who will do any of the trading. It will be British business men who will build UK trade as it always has been, although I do admit politicians do help to sell arms. Before moving off Australia and to be fair to my Irish distant relatives, I should point out one cultural issue. Ireland is one of only 4 (out of 27) EU countries that is higher than Australia on the Human Freedom Index, Australia being one of the freest countries in the world. You are correct on my views on national sovereignty; it is for each nation to decide what government it wants and not have laws imposed on them by anyone other than those that they have elected. It is ironic that an American President who is so against the UK leaving the EU doesn't understand the basic principal on which his own country was founded. Maybe its because the Americans have been eating beef cattle and sheep fed with hormone drugs since the 1950s?
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Aug 17, 2022 20:23:34 GMT
In terms of elected law makers, in the EU I think it is 733 of the 761 law makers are elected. Give or take the odd President who is of course not elected by people. Only the Commission members are unelected, but they are chosen by each member’s elected leader. The EU Council and the Parliament are all elected. In the UK, 650 of its 1,410 law makers are elected. Thanks for that, the difference is we can get rid of those 650 that are the ones that really matter, if we the people choose. Yes, and the people can get rid of the 733 out of 761 in the EU. Whereas Boris Johnson is going to be handpicking another several new Lords and Ladies to further the democratic deficit in our country.
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Aug 18, 2022 9:28:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 18, 2022 10:02:59 GMT
The drum I've been banging on here for the last few weeks but not as subtle You can add Energy and Water to that as well which are in same position
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Aug 18, 2022 10:32:30 GMT
"You are correct on my views on national sovereignty.It is for each nation to decide what government it wants and not have laws imposed on them (sic) by anyone other than those they have elected" (Mr Coke).
It follows from this that each EU nation has chosen governments which cooperate with each other to formulate and work with EU laws. So where exactly is their missing sovereignty?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 18, 2022 14:43:33 GMT
I cannot dispute facts, but the fact is the UK has not yet actually entered a recession yet. Assuming it does it will simply be a consequence of world economics and do dispute with you that it is due to Brexit. It is perfectly logical to draw comparisons with other countries' economies; to ignore what is happening to economies such as the US, China, and Germany, three of the UK's main trading partners would be blinkered. I'm pleased that you understand the gravity model of trade and should not be surprised that you " agree with it entirely" as it suits your purpose. There is a basic intuitive logic to the theory that trade is influenced by size and distance of economies, but is it correct? I refer you to this paper that reveals flaws in the theory: it's rather long and technical so you may choose to read the conclusions first. The paper suggests that the gravity theory does not support the massive change that has occurred in world trade in recent decades. www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/230434/1/1048210502.pdfYou make the statement of lost EU trade; I don't believe there will be any significant lost EU trade except for niche markets such as food. There seems to be a fixation in the minds of those opposed to Brexit that leaving the EU means the UK stops trading with the EU. UK trade with the EU will continue to grow, albeit at a slower rate, possibly because of the gravity theory you believe in, if for no other reason. Neither is the EU going to stop trading with one of the world's major economies on its doorstep. The UK has been the "Treasure Island" for EU trade for decades. fullfact.org/europe/is-the-uk-really-the-eus-treasure-island/The UK will continue to trade heavily with the EU in goods, but when it comes to services, the UK has the opportunity to be the world's second most dominant leading trading nation after the US. But I have a much better trade "theory" for you. The EU represents less than 20% of the world GDP and is shrinking as a proportion of world GDP and is the world's slowest growing continental economy (apart from Antarctica) and will be constrained in future by demographics, Germany being a prime example. The typical growth rate of the EU has been 2% pa. UK trade with the EU has grown at 1% pa and until the referendum exhibited an increasing negative balance of payments with the EU approaching £(70) billion pa. (£(30) billion with Germany). Even while a member of the EU, UK trade has been growing at typically 2-3% with the rest of the world. I suggest it will grow faster when new trade deals are in place and we are removing/reducing EU barriers from our imports with RoW. Conversely the rest of the world, i.e. over 80% of the world economy has been growing at 3 % pa, which is 50% faster and that is an average rate of world nations. Many nations are growing very slowly if at all, whereas others like India are growing at 8%. India's economy is already as large as the UK, its population is three times greater than the EU and growing fast. There are many other countries growing fast like India, and the UK will far better placed trading with them outside of the EU, due to what you referred to as " Trade Barriers". I can't speak for others on this MB, but personally I (and my wife) are far more culturally close to our relatives in Australia and New Zealand, than my former work colleagues in Paris and IJmuiden with whom I had a strong comradeship just as I did with my Indian colleagues in Jamshedpur. Distance is not such a major issue for services trade and the type of high added value products the UK exports. To conclude my "theory" is that UK trade will grow a lot faster trading with the fastest growing economies in the larger part of the world economy, and with many of which we have a strong historical links. When I say trade is growing, I mean the general trend since the pandemic. If you look at any graph on UK trade it shows a general upward trend on goods and services exports. There are bound to be monthly and seasonal fluctuations, in June for example fuel exports to The Netherlands jumped 67%, but that is simply flash in the pan driven by the war and need to stock gas during the summer. I worked in the steel industry for most of my working life and it was customary to de-stock before the end of the financial year in March, and it was usual for customers to de-stock at the start of their financial year to reduce feedstock before summer shut-downs. It is the nature of trade to fluctuate with economic, fiscal, and seasonal cycles. The current record deficit in trade is due to the hugely increased cost of energy imports, from which the whole of Europe is also suffering. Nothing to do with Brexit. When you say, "Trade is NOT growing with ROW it declined £2Bn in 2nd Quarter" I am a bit nonplussed. The ONS released trade data on the 12th August. www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/june2022From this mine of information: In Q2 2022 Total exports increased by £12.3b to £178.6b* from £166.4b in Q1. In Q2 2022 Total goods exports increased by £10.7b to £96.7b* from £86.0b in Q1. In Q2 2022 Total services exports increased by £1.6b to £82.0b^ from £80.4b in Q1. In Q2 2022 EU goods exports increased by £6.9b to £49.4b* from £42.5b in Q1. In Q2 2022 Non EU goods exports increased by £3.8b to £47.2b^ from £43.5b in Q1. (It should be noted that the above numbers are rounded to the nearest decimal point, the data excludes precious metals, and the ONS changed the method of calculating in January which would have the effect of depressing some of January's data.) * - highest recorded values ever ^ - second highest recorded values ever We should not get too excited by the record high values as they are inflated by energy prices, and overwhelmed by record imports due to energy costs. I have not seen any data for a split on services exports between EU and non EU. I would like to know where you got the information that trade declined by £2b in Q2. Now to the subject of beef from Australia. You seem not to be aware that we import 170,000 tonnes pa of beef from Ireland, a country that has a lower Environmental Performance Index than Australia, who are ranked 17th out of 180 countries and higher than most of the EU. You are highly critical of Australia, but you seem quite happy to import from the EU which has the Common Agricultural Policy as a cornerstone policy. As we spread our dependency on imports for food, we will be less dependent on the evil CAP. I expect Australian (and in future Canadian) beef to displace imports from the EU. As for UK farmers, they have 10 years to get their act together; but there will always be a place for British beef on the British dining table and opportunities to increase beef, lamb, and pork exports, which is actually already happening. I wish some people had had the same concern for UK manufacturing industry that they seem to have for agriculture, which enjoys massive tax payers funding. As to what the Australian trade deal is worth, who knows? Prof. Minford has estimated £69 billion, 37 times more than the government economists. I personally don't know. What I do know it will not be politicians, civil servants, political advisers and consultants, newspaper correspondents, etc. who will do any of the trading. It will be British business men who will build UK trade as it always has been, although I do admit politicians do help to sell arms. Before moving off Australia and to be fair to my Irish distant relatives, I should point out one cultural issue. Ireland is one of only 4 (out of 27) EU countries that is higher than Australia on the Human Freedom Index, Australia being one of the freest countries in the world. You are correct on my views on national sovereignty; it is for each nation to decide what government it wants and not have laws imposed on them by anyone other than those that they have elected. It is ironic that an American President who is so against the UK leaving the EU doesn't understand the basic principal on which his own country was founded. Maybe its because the Americans have been eating beef cattle and sheep fed with hormone drugs since the 1950s? Thanks for you reply I will just respond to a few points as we have very opposite views of UK Economy. I believe we are likely to see a shrinking Economy outside EU i believe we will see that manifest quite soon and if I'm correct the only debate will be the cause You replied to a number of my points but strangely not the one you claim was your main reason for voting Brexit, to wit Parliamentary Sovereignty even Gina Miller would agree with you on that The Australia Trade Deal which is likely to be a Template for future Trade Deals is being pushed through without Parliamentary Scrutiny but by Executive only. Furthermore it contains "Secret Clauses " which binds future Governments. Surely this is far from Taking Back Control and must be anathema to you ? Even within EU, Parliament could approve or otherwise Trade Deals Is this not a step back for Sovereignty You contend UK Exports are growing, this is simply not correct Since Q1 2019 UK Exports have slightly contracted -0.3% while all our main peers in EU and ROW have increased by at least 10% and some much more than that (Source UN Comtrade) www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/12/uk-economy-shrank-in-three-months-to-juneI don't share your optimism that UK can considerably increase exports UK is an important Exporter but relatively modest in comparison to others. It is 45% of Germany and about equal to France and Netherlands (These figures include both Goods and Services) worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/exports-by-countryYou contend that UK will continue to Trade heavily with EU (currently about 50% of total) that may be the case but about 1/3 of UK Companies have stopped exporting to EU because of Red Tape I'm somewhat confused with comment on Services Export Growth They will undoubtedly for Financial Services reduce considerably over time with EU. Where are you seeing this Growth Spurt? Yes I'm quite familiar with Gravity Theory from my days at LSE as my old Economics Professor was quite keen on Formulae. He was a Rabid Socialist (maybe Communist) his favourite subject was to Nationalise Banks which he could stray onto at any given time. Fortunately this was pre-Thatcher whom I'm sure he combusted under. You are familiar with the 300 miles to Paris versus 5,000 miles to Beijing calculation. Of course there isn't an exact calculation but intuitively it's common sense Returning to Australia and Beef you say UK Farmers have 10 years "to get their act together " As you claim to be an Environmentalist I'm surprised as this will involve a race to the bottom including using Pesticides, Hormone Growth and deforestation to compete on a level playing field This is exactly what was predicted and denied as Project Fear Australia may well have a high ranking on Human Freedom, but its record on the Environment is shocking It ranked dead last of UN Countries on Climate change www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/01/australia-ranks-last-for-climate-action-among-un-member-countriesFinally you asked where I quoted UK declining Exports to ROW, I quoted from ONS Total exports of goods, excluding precious metals, fell by £2.7 billion (8.0%) in June 2022, driven by a £2.0 billion (11.9%) decrease in exports to non-EU countries, while exports to EU countries decreased by £0.7 billion (3.9%). www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/june2022
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Aug 18, 2022 17:24:49 GMT
So in essence you agree with my Post, which is hardly surprising as I merely posted the facts that UK is entering recession which is likely to last at least 2 years and at the same time UK Trading is shrinking with the Trade Deficit at record levels. Youu have added extraneous comparators to other Countries It may surprise you but my primary concern is UK performance No requirement to explain Trade Gravitational Theory (GRT) at least to me, I agree with it entirely and it is in fact my biggest Economic Objection to Brexit. It is intuitive, even to those that do not understand GRT, that you are more likely to be successful Trading with those Countries you are Geographically and Culturally close to than those more distant and by quite a Factor according to the Theory It is only the ERG and yourself have expounded on here that Gravity can be defied and lost EU Trade can be compensated by Trade from more far flung Countries. It is hardly coincidental that 8 of the Top 10 Countries UK Exports to are in Europe The exceptions US being No 1 and China being 7th behind Ireland You acknowledge that EU will continue to be an important but declining Export Market for UK Which is hardly surprising when you introduce Trade Barriers to such an extent that One Third of UK Companies have ceased exporting to EU because it is not cost effective with increased administration It then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that EU Exports become less of the overall Export Pie due to new barriers to Trade, but under GR Theory those lost EU Exports will not be replaced by Trade with ROW so the Pie has become smaller Your C Comment: Trade is NOT growing with ROW it declined £2Bn in 2nd Quarter And let's examine UK/Australia Trade Deal the first independently negotiated Trade Deal and likely to become UK model for future Trade Deals your Jam Tomorrow assertion According to the Government’s own impact statement it would add 0.08% to GDP by 2035 Woopty Doo commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9484/And does this New found Brexit Freedom to negotiate Trade Deals enhance UK Sovereignty and restore Supremacy to UK Parliament? Well no not really because Government refused Parliamentary debate on the Agreement despite many concerns raised by Constituents and interested groups to their MPs about the Agreement www.sustainweb.org/news/jul22-australia-trade-scrutiny-crag-ends/What could Government possibly not want Parliamentarians to discuss? Maybe it's the secret provisions in the Agreement This would be binding on future Governments a boast that Brexiteers say the purpose of Brexit is to allow the Electorate to change Government to change future Policy leftfootforward.org/2021/06/tories-hint-at-secret-corporate-courts-in-uk-australia-trade-deal/The Independent Trade and Agriculture Commission TAC which advices Government on Animal Welfare, Plant Health Standards and Environment Standards as they relate to Agriculture were asked to do an impact report on the UK Australia Trade deal. It doesn't make pretty reading www.fwi.co.uk/news/australia-trade-deal-what-the-tac-report-has-to-say#:~:text=The%20TAC%20report%20confirms%20the,produced%20to%20lower%20welfare%20standards. The TAC report confirms the deal could result in the UK having to accept imports of agrifoods produced with pesticides banned in the UK, GM crops and wool from mutilated sheep.
It is also likely to increase imports of beef from feedlot systems and produced to lower welfare standards. The committee found that agri-foods from deforested land could be imported in larger quantities as well.
The Agreement will also allow the import of Hormonal Growth Treated Beef albeit labelled as such
Not great for the Environment either importing Food from deforested land and from halfway around the World but even worse news for UK Farmers who will have to compete with Australian Farmers who use much lower standards and therefore cost. Of course Government could lower Food and Environmental Standards in UK to allow UK Farmers to compete on an even playing field, it would just be one more broken promise I accept for many the vote for Brexit was on Non Economic Grounds which is a fair position to take. My contention using the UK/Australia Trade Deal as an example makes a mockery of this assertion where there is even less scrutiny and is binding on future Governments Another Unintended Consequence only peripherally discussed during the Brexit Debate is the potential breakup of the Union where much clearer majorities in Scotland and Northern-ireland voted in favour of remaining in EU than UK as a whole voted to leave.. I know you have expressed a neutral position on this previously if it were the wish of those Countries which to be fair is consistent with your position on Brexit. Others may not share your view. The impetus particularly in Scotland for Independence may gain momentum if NI effectively still within EU continues to outpace GB Economically I cannot dispute facts, but the fact is the UK has not yet actually entered a recession yet. Assuming it does it will simply be a consequence of world economics and do dispute with you that it is due to Brexit. The biggest impactor on the UK economy are the global factors and the UK government's pathetic response. To suggest that Brexit is not having at least some impact on UK economic activity is ignoring the reality. You have previously argued that by introducing immigration controls the number of job vacancies has risen and pay is increasing in certain sectors. That is reasonable, but on the flipside that means farms are leaving crops to rot, pubs and restaurants are unable to open due to staff shortages etc and so leads to reduced economic activity in the UK compared to what it might have been. I don't believe that on one hand it is reasonable to claim that the positives of a reduction in the supply of labour is due to Brexit, without accepting that insufficient supply of labour due to Brexit results in reduced economic activity.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 18, 2022 18:25:27 GMT
I cannot dispute facts, but the fact is the UK has not yet actually entered a recession yet. Assuming it does it will simply be a consequence of world economics and do dispute with you that it is due to Brexit. The biggest impactor on the UK economy are the global factors and the UK government's pathetic response. To suggest that Brexit is not having at least some impact on UK economic activity is ignoring the reality. You have previously argued that by introducing immigration controls the number of job vacancies has risen and pay is increasing in certain sectors. That is reasonable, but on the flipside that means farms are leaving crops to rot, pubs and restaurants are unable to open due to staff shortages etc and so leads to reduced economic activity in the UK compared to what it might have been. I don't believe that on one hand it is reasonable to claim that the positives of a reduction in the supply of labour is due to Brexit, without accepting that insufficient supply of labour due to Brexit results in reduced economic activity. There is no evidence that Brexit is having any impact on UK economic activity. Firstly there has been no mass exit of EU nationals. migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/There are just as many EU nationals working in the UK today as 2016. Crops were rotting in the fields in 2015 due to shortage of labour. A survey of lettuce growers across 10 counties, accounting for over half the UK lettuce crop found that 19% was not harvested. That is the wastage that the CAP generates. There is a significant reduction in EU nationals moving to the UK. There is a large shortage of labour across the western world since the pandemic due to large numbers of over 50s not returning to work. Consequently many EU nationals are finding it easier to find jobs in their own country. Furthermore wage increases in many east European countries have increased markedly more than the west of Europe making it less attractive to move. Then there is the IR35 regulation that has dissuaded many not to come to the UK due to having to pay more tax than prior to April 2021. Germany is crying out for labour but they haven't left the EU. tradingeconomics.com/country-list/wage-growthwww.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-02/german-labor-shortages-menace-half-of-companies-across-economyThe UK problems of inflation, energy prices, etc. labour shortages, falling GDP, etc are replicated across many countries. If there are differences they are more attributable to government policies than they are to Brexit. France has faired better than most because they started with 70% nuclear power and Macron capped energy price increases well over a year ago.
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Aug 18, 2022 18:55:23 GMT
The biggest impactor on the UK economy are the global factors and the UK government's pathetic response. To suggest that Brexit is not having at least some impact on UK economic activity is ignoring the reality. You have previously argued that by introducing immigration controls the number of job vacancies has risen and pay is increasing in certain sectors. That is reasonable, but on the flipside that means farms are leaving crops to rot, pubs and restaurants are unable to open due to staff shortages etc and so leads to reduced economic activity in the UK compared to what it might have been. I don't believe that on one hand it is reasonable to claim that the positives of a reduction in the supply of labour is due to Brexit, without accepting that insufficient supply of labour due to Brexit results in reduced economic activity. There is no evidence that Brexit is having any impact on UK economic activity. Firstly there has been no mass exit of EU nationals. migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/There are just as many EU nationals working in the UK today as 2016. Crops were rotting in the fields in 2015 due to shortage of labour. There is a significant reduction in EU nationals moving to the UK. There is a large shortage of labour across the western world since the pandemic due to large numbers of over 50s not returning to work. Consequently many EU nationals are finding it easier to find jobs in their own country. Furthermore wage increases in many east European countries have increased markedly more than the west of Europe making it less attractive to move. Then there is the IR35 regulation that has dissuaded many not to come to the UK due to having to pay more tax than prior to April 2021. Germany is crying out for labour but they haven't left the EU. tradingeconomics.com/country-list/wage-growthwww.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-02/german-labor-shortages-menace-half-of-companies-across-economyThe UK problems of inflation, energy prices, etc. labour shortages, falling GDP, etc are replicated across many countries. If there are differences they are more attributable to government policies than they are to Brexit. France has faired better than most because they started with 70% nuclear power and Macron capped energy price increases well over a year ago. So you do not claim that wages are rising thanks to Brexit?
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Aug 18, 2022 20:20:20 GMT
Gaps on supermarket shelves, inferior quality fruit, prices rising faster and higher than a hot air balloon, a winter of fuel misery ahead of us, and a PM who has gone awol. Nothing to do with Brexit **** off, pardon my language.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 18, 2022 21:12:05 GMT
The biggest impactor on the UK economy are the global factors and the UK government's pathetic response. To suggest that Brexit is not having at least some impact on UK economic activity is ignoring the reality. You have previously argued that by introducing immigration controls the number of job vacancies has risen and pay is increasing in certain sectors. That is reasonable, but on the flipside that means farms are leaving crops to rot, pubs and restaurants are unable to open due to staff shortages etc and so leads to reduced economic activity in the UK compared to what it might have been. I don't believe that on one hand it is reasonable to claim that the positives of a reduction in the supply of labour is due to Brexit, without accepting that insufficient supply of labour due to Brexit results in reduced economic activity. Firstly there has been no mass exit of EU nationals. migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/There are just as many EU nationals working in the UK today as 2016.
Can you direct me to where it makes these claims in your link please, I can't seem to see it, it's probably just me?
Many thanks
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 18, 2022 21:43:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Aug 18, 2022 22:14:23 GMT
|
|