BREXIT

[oowee]

29 minutes ago, SpringDon said:

Well speaking as a student who failed the entrance exam for the Diane Abbott school of mathematics, you appear to be saying a contribution of ~£12 bln is justification for a trade deficit of ~£64bln. I’m not sure what Gordon Bennett has to say on the matter, but that’s not a good deal in my opinion.

The trade defecit is not a measure of UK profit from the relationship. Very many businesses in the UK are here to access EU markets using UK employment and tax breaks. The UK bonus is massive. 

[armsid]

okay ,what trade deal has turkey and canada got with EU? how is turkey alligned with EU regs Transit van production was moved there before BREXIT vote  why uk jobs gone how do canada access the EU market            AS DAVE G STATED THIS WAS ORIGINALLY A TRADE GROUP NOT AN UNELLECTED JOB EMPIRE AND QUANGO CREATING JOB BY STEALTH BY MERKEL AND CO SHE HAS DONE WHAT ADOLF FAILED TO DO  THE FORMATION OF A GERMAN DOMINATED SUPERSTATE WHERE EVERYONE DOES AS TOLD AND SATTELITE GOVS. TOE THE LINE AND PAY TO KEEP THE MONSTER (WHO IS STILL GROWING ) FED as i said earlier if we remain in will our tax system be absorbed along with our benifits system how will nhs be funded will our pension funds be safe

[SpringDon]

29 minutes ago, oowee said:

The trade defecit is not a measure of UK profit from the relationship. Very many businesses in the UK are here to access EU markets using UK employment and tax breaks. The UK bonus is massive. 

If I understand correctly, you are saying that the uk turnover is increased through membership. Turnover is not profit but I concede that it does boost gdp.

However, ROW agreements  are compromised by eu deals having to cover areas that we have no vested interest in, such as wine, olive oil or toblerones. These are are sectors we could concentrate on, plus the bonus of heaped imports outside a protectionist bloc.

[Raja Clavata]

1 hour ago, KB1 said:

Or being held to ransom, or throwing your money down the toilet etc. analogies are wonderful things🥴

I quantified my analogy tho, you didn’t.

[Raja Clavata]

1 hour ago, SpringDon said:

Well speaking as a student who failed the entrance exam for the Diane Abbott school of mathematics, you appear to be saying a contribution of ~£12 bln is justification for a trade deficit of ~£64bln. I’m not sure what Gordon Bennett has to say on the matter, but that’s not a good deal in my opinion.

I’m sorry but I don’t readily know where to begin in trying to help unravel your confusion around this.

Allow me to start by pointing out that we are a net consumer not producer. 

The £12B is about having access to the market in order for UK companies to sell goods or services within the EU. 

The £12B is about 0.6% of our GDP, in leaving the EU the impact on our GDP will be significantly greater than £12B.

 

14 minutes ago, SpringDon said:

If I understand correctly, you are saying that the uk turnover is increased through membership. Turnover is not profit but I concede that it does boost gdp.

However, ROW agreements  are compromised by eu deals having to cover areas that we have no vested interest in, such as wine, olive oil or toblerones. These are are sectors we could concentrate on, plus the bonus of heaped imports outside a protectionist bloc.

GDP should be viewed as revenue not turnover👍

[Retsdon]

1 hour ago, Yellow Bear said:

No discuss terms that are reasonable to both sides not dictate.  You know full well what I mean but like them you have your own anti democratic agenda  to get something you desire

I suppose reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder. The free trade agreement that the EU offered May was, in their eyes, perfectly reasonable but she turned it down as unreasonable and wanted instead her own version  that included selective access to the Single Market, collaborative EU projects etc, which the EU in turn considered unreasonable of her.

It seems to me that the main issues are:

1) The EU can not allow Britain access to the Single Market without Britain accepting regulatory oversight from EU institutions. It simply can't be done without ripping out one of the pillars that the whole EU is founded on.

2) Anything that offers less than 1) is almost certainly going to do economic damage to both sides, but Britain in particular which is why Britain doesn't want to settle for less than 1).

3) The moment Britain leaves the EU and the Single Market the border in Ireland becomes the external border of all the remaining 27 countries. See 1) above again.

 

Nobody is being 'unreasonable' here. The issue is that there isn't anywhere left to move forwards to. In normal negotiations everyone would get up from the table and walk away. But of course in normal negotiations walking away means returning to the status quo ante which, in Brexit terms, would mean remaining in the EU. And that's not acceptable.

It's a mess.

[Dave-G]

2 hours ago, Retsdon said:

seems to me that the main issues are:

1) The EU can not allow Britain access to the Single Market without Britain accepting regulatory oversight from EU institutions. It simply can't be done without ripping out one of the pillars that the whole EU is founded on.

That's the entirely rotten part of the deal - the blackmail and control pillars that increasingly by stealth surrender our independence and rights to elect those who govern us.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

2 hours ago, Retsdon said:

I suppose reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder. The free trade agreement that the EU offered May was, in their eyes, perfectly reasonable but she turned it down as unreasonable and wanted instead her own version  that included selective access to the Single Market, collaborative EU projects etc, which the EU in turn considered unreasonable of her.

It seems to me that the main issues are:

1) The EU can not allow Britain access to the Single Market without Britain accepting regulatory oversight from EU institutions. It simply can't be done without ripping out one of the pillars that the whole EU is founded on.

2) Anything that offers less than 1) is almost certainly going to do economic damage to both sides, but Britain in particular which is why Britain doesn't want to settle for less than 1).

3) The moment Britain leaves the EU and the Single Market the border in Ireland becomes the external border of all the remaining 27 countries. See 1) above again.

 

Nobody is being 'unreasonable' here. The issue is that there isn't anywhere left to move forwards to. In normal negotiations everyone would get up from the table and walk away. But of course in normal negotiations walking away means returning to the status quo ante which, in Brexit terms, would mean remaining in the EU. And that's not acceptable.

It's a mess.

But there has not been any worthwhile negotiation from the start, this country joined the Common Market, an economic trading collective without political ambitions that has developed in to a monster seeking more and more control and regulation through unelected glitterati! 

When cameron went to the EU to attempt to resolve some issues he got nothing from them, that led to the calls for the referendum that he so badly underestimated the leave result! Once that had been held, we were on a road to a bad break-up. They do not want to lose our money, we do not want to be held to ransom!

When we leave on the 31st of October it will be a new beginning,  there may well be some painful times but we can get back to running our own country and to sorting out the other big mess that is our bloody awful parliamentary system.

[SpringDon]

2 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

I’m sorry but I don’t readily know where to begin in trying to help unravel your confusion around this.

Allow me to start by pointing out that we are a net consumer not producer. 

The £12B is about having access to the market in order for UK companies to sell goods or services within the EU. 

The £12B is about 0.6% of our GDP, in leaving the EU the impact on our GDP will be significantly greater than £12B.

 

GDP should be viewed as revenue not turnover👍

I appreciate your sorrow over my confusion. Allow me to point out that net consumer is implicit in the word deficit.

£12bln (at least) is the door price. Whilst it maybe only 1% of gdp, imports are only 25% of gdp. So I repeat my conviction that we pay a great deal of money to run a deficit.

This must change, whether through leaving, further integration or reform. Status quo is not an option.

Gdp is the sum of final prices and services produced within an economy over a period of time. That is not the same as revenue.

[panoma1]

25 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

But there has not been any worthwhile negotiation from the start, this country joined the Common Market, an economic trading collective without political ambitions that has developed in to a monster seeking more and more control and regulation through unelected glitterati! 

When cameron went to the EU to attempt to resolve some issues he got nothing from them, that led to the calls for the referendum that he so badly underestimated the leave result! Once that had been held, we were on a road to a bad break-up. They do not want to lose our money, we do not want to be held to ransom!

When we leave on the 31st of October it will be a new beginning,  there may well be some painful times but we can get back to running our own country and to sorting out the other big mess that is our bloody awful parliamentary system.

And when out of the clutches of the unelected EU commissioners, we’ll know where to place the blame when/if it all goes pear shaped.........our own lying, grasping, self serving, incompetent politicians! But at least come a general election we can kick em out of government!............And replace them with more home grown lying, grasping, self serving, incompetents!

[Scully]

20 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

And that’s part of the problem, a GE is for 5 years max. Leaving the EU is likely to be for all intents and purposes forever. We’ll never get a deal as good as the one we currently have.

Its not about ignoring, it’s about delivering an acceptable version of Brexit. That depends on which side of the argument you sit; there is definitely an agenda to ignore the result by one means or another. 

Yes all parties campaigned to honour the vote on the basis of an acceptable version of Brexit. No, all parties campaigned to honour the result of the vote, there was no mention of an acceptable version of leave or remain. 

I have explained the key reality: Brexit does not appear to be possible in the manner it was originally sold to the people who bought into leave in the referendum.Again, this very much depends on which version of leave one is in favour of. It is very possible to leave without a deal; what is to stop us? 

If Brexiteers are so cock sure of the current will of the people what is it that they are so scared of regarding the formality of a second vote on the details? But there won't be another vote 'on the details'. Remainers aren't campaigning on a vote for the details; they may claim they are, but that is simply a method by which to stall the process with the ultimate aim of stopping us leaving. Remainers don't want a vote 'on the details', they want to remain. The clue is in the name. 

I’d suggest if the answer is fear of splitting the leave vote then it really does question the validity of the claim that all votes for leave were a vote for no deal. How can any vote consist of a remain option? That is simply another referendum! We have already voted to leave; so the only options are to leave with a deal or without. 

The only way to ensure we leave completely, is to sever all ties. Only then can we start to negotiate trade deals. 

Never mind rocket science, it’s simple logic. Correct.

Can I ask all those who are reluctant to leave without a deal, just what it is that they are scared of? 

[Raja Clavata]

6 hours ago, panoma1 said:

Better to be “a big fish in a small pond, than a small fish in a big pond”

So you’re advocating staying in the EU, perfect...

[TIGHTCHOKE]

2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

So you’re advocating staying in the EU, perfect...

I doubt very much that was what Panoma1 meant!

[panoma1]

16 minutes ago, Scully said:

Can I ask all those who are reluctant to leave without a deal, just what it is that they are scared of? 

I believe they are either scared by project fear or they will personally lose out financially by the UK leaving the EU.........but it will be interesting to see what reasons the remainders give!

[Raja Clavata]

1 hour ago, SpringDon said:

I appreciate your sorrow over my confusion. Allow me to point out that net consumer is implicit in the word deficit.

£12bln (at least) is the door price. Whilst it maybe only 1% of gdp, imports are only 25% of gdp. So I repeat my conviction that we pay a great deal of money to run a deficit.

This must change, whether through leaving, further integration or reform. Status quo is not an option.

Gdp is the sum of final prices and services produced within an economy over a period of time. That is not the same as revenue.

You lost me with “imports are only 25% of gdp” - I give up and conclude we are indeed discussing alternative realities.

GDP is a lot more like revenue than turnover, but never mind.

[Yellow Bear]

6 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

So you’re advocating staying in the EU, perfect...

We were becoming sidelined and a small fish (albeit a major financier) in the EU long before the ref.

[Raja Clavata]

4 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

I doubt very much that was what Panoma1 meant!

Came as a surprise to me too but since I can’t read his mind and only interpret what he posts, my conclusion appears valid, no?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

No, let's let him clear up the anomaly!

[panoma1]

7 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

So you’re advocating staying in the EU, perfect...

Let my clarify for you! 

Better to be a big fish = UK, in a little pond = UK.

Than a small fish = UK, in a big pond = EU.

What’s so difficult to understand in that?

 

[Raja Clavata]

28 minutes ago, Scully said:

Can I ask all those who are reluctant to leave without a deal, just what it is that they are scared of? 

In a nutshell: Because with few exceptions, the likes of JRM & Co. and those who have already retired, we are ALL gonna be worse off. Some are gonna be hit really hard, and I don’t much fancy bailing out the very turkeys who voted for Christmas.

[panoma1]

1 minute ago, Raja Clavata said:

In a nutshell: Because with few exceptions, the likes of JRM & Co. and those who have already retired, we are ALL gonna be worse off. Some are gonna be hit really hard, and I don’t much fancy bailing out the very turkeys who voted for Christmas.

How do you know?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Surprise surprise the Labour party and its governing body have been unable to decide which way they wish to proceed with Brexit or Remain!

[Raja Clavata]

2 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Let my clarify for you! 

Better to be a big fish = UK, in a little pond = UK.

Than a small fish = UK, in a big pond = EU.

What’s so difficult to understand in that?

 

Thanks for clarifying 🤣

Whilst the UK is in the EU the UK is a big fish in a small pond. If and when the UK leaves the EU the UK becomes a small fish in a big pond.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

When, not if!

[panoma1]

Just now, Raja Clavata said:

Thanks for clarifying 🤣

Whilst the UK is in the EU the UK is a big fish in a small pond. If and when the UK leaves the EU the UK becomes a small fish in a big pond.

Nope, whilst in the EU the UK is a small fish in a big pond.....when we leave the big pond we will be a big fish in our own pond!