Britain will face some food shortages in a no-deal Brexit: trade body

[Jip99]

7 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Parliament is sovereign. It can do with Brexit what it wants. 

 

I suggest you get your facts right before you make such a comment. 

 

You are very quick off the mark to criticize others.....did you read his link......I see you have not provided anything tangible in countering his statement.

 

The Queen is sovereign.

[welovesundaysatspace]

5 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

You are very quick off the mark to criticize others.....did you read his link......

I did. 

 

5 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

I see you have not provided anything tangible in countering his statement.

He tried to suggest parliament is not sovereign but failed to prove that. His own link says that parliament can change laws or pass new ones, but I guess none of you actually bothered to read past the first paragraph. 

 

And, to be honest, quite sad that you don’t know your own political system and have to be educated by Johnny Foreigner. 

 

5 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

The Queen is sovereign.

And unelected. 

[Jip99]

Just now, welovesundaysatspace said:

I did. 

 

He tried to suggest parliament is not sovereign but failed to prove that. His own link says that parliament can change laws or pass new ones, but I guess none of you actually bothered to read past the first paragraph. 

 

And, to be honest, quite sad that you don’t know your own political system and have to be educated by Johnny Foreigner. 

 

And unelected. 

 

 

You teach me nothing Jonny......... yet again.

[upu2]

No it wont. This is just trying to produce mass hysteria. How does trash like this actually get published?

[welovesundaysatspace]

53 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

You teach me nothing Jonny......... yet again.

You choose to stay uneducated; up to you. 

[Forethat]

2 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I did. 

 

He tried to suggest parliament is not sovereign but failed to prove that. His own link says that parliament can change laws or pass new ones, but I guess none of you actually bothered to read past the first paragraph. 

 

And, to be honest, quite sad that you don’t know your own political system and have to be educated by Johnny Foreigner. 

 

And unelected. 

No I didn't. What I did was to provide a perfectly accurate description of our parliament, but now when you have resorted to blunt lies I guess it wouldn't matter if the speaker himself walked up to you with the Queen's stamp his wrist and told you what the Parliaments job is - and that isn't to stop Brexit. Here's a brief description of Government, Parliament, Ministers and MPs, please point out where it say's that it is the job of the Parliament to stop Brexit?

 

Or, in this case, perhaps it would be easier if you simply said "Ok, I was wrong"....

 

Quote

Government

The government runs the country. It has responsibility for developing and implementing policy and for drafting laws. It is also known as the 'Executive'.

Parliament

Parliament is the highest legislative authority in the UK. It has responsibility for checking the work of government and examining, debating and approving new laws. It is also known as the 'Legislature'.

Forming a government

A political party that wins an overall majority in the House of Commons at a general election forms the new government and its leader becomes Prime Minister. 

If no party wins a majority of the seats then the largest party may form a minority government or there may be a coalition government of two or more parties.

The Prime Minister appoints ministers who work in the government departments, the most senior of these sit in Cabinet.

• Read more about what happens if no party wins a majority: About Parliament: Hung Parliament

Ministers and MPs

Government ministers are chosen from MPs and Lords in Parliament. Your MP may be a member of the party forming the current Government, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are working 'in government'. Ministers must regularly respond to oral and written questions from MPs and Lords.

Scrutiny of the government

Parliament checks the work of the government on behalf of UK citizens through investigative select committees and by asking government ministers questions. The House of Commons also has to approve proposals for government taxes and spending.

Confidence motion

The government needs to retain the confidence of a majority in the House of Commons. If the House votes to indicate that it has no confidence in the government, either by defeating the government on a confidence motion or by defeating a policy that the government has indicated is a 'matter of confidence', then a General Election would be called if a confidence motion in the new government was not passed within 14 days of the original no confidence motion.

Government Bills

Each year the government informs Parliament of its plans for new legislation in the Queen's Speech. New legislation is usually introduced in the form of a Bill that must be debated and approved by Parliament before it can become an Act of Parliament - the government needs the support of the majority of the House of Commons to function.

 

 

[Loiner]

You just proved my point. Your post is a litany of "I think".

That’s the problem with Remainers: they don’t want anybody to think, no not even on a forum. It’s (to Remainers) unthinkable that anybody reach a conclusion contrary to their perceived correct position, and god forbid that anybody could decide and actually declare that Remainers have got it wrong.
Invariably they are the same type of trendy progressive that has tried to wrap up the western world in a tangle of PC liberalism over the past few decades. Maybe Brexit will see off a few of those tricks too.

[Forethat]

9 minutes ago, Loiner said:

That’s the problem with Remainers: they don’t want anybody to think, no not even on a forum. It’s (to Remainers) unthinkable that anybody reach a conclusion contrary to their perceived correct position, and god forbid that anybody could decide and actually declare that Remainers have got it wrong.
Invariably they are the same type of trendy progressive that has tried to wrap up the western world in a tangle of PC liberalism over the past few decades. Maybe Brexit will see off a few of those tricks too.

 

My experience shows that what remainers usually perceive as being signs of an incredibly rude and unsightly nature of personality is when someone points out to them that they are wrong. It becomes even nastier if the person in question moreover is able to explicate exactly WHY the remainer is wrong, and in addition, is prepared to show empirical facts that clearly exemplifies how crazy the remainer's arguments might be. In the event of such case, the remainer is clearly dealing with an asocial madman who – in the event that the remainer is totally unable to defend his complete and utter lack of knowledge – should be subject to name-calling and racism to prevent this sinister character from revealing the remainer's incompetence by providing sound statements supported by empirical facts – which is apparently perceived as being a “Brexiteer”.

 

With that in mind, I will continue to be as big "Brexiteer” as I possibly can.

[aright]

Forums are made for discussing topics with like-minded people expressing their serious opinions and concerns….in this case Brexit. 

welovesundaysatspace made his level of concern clear when he said “I really don’t care. It’s just a big amusement.”

You have to ask the question what is his point in being on this thread if it's only for fun, it shows a lack of respect for serious contributors on both sides of the argument.

 

 

[Laughing Gravy]

6 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I did. 

 

He tried to suggest parliament is not sovereign but failed to prove that. His own link says that parliament can change laws or pass new ones, but I guess none of you actually bothered to read past the first paragraph. 

 

And, to be honest, quite sad that you don’t know your own political system and have to be educated by Johnny Foreigner. 

 

And unelected. 

So you are a foreigner. Finally explains everything. Don't go running to teacher.

[SheungWan]

 
You are very quick off the mark to criticize others.....did you read his link......I see you have not provided anything tangible in countering his statement.
 
The Queen is sovereign.

That business was sorted out in 1649 with Charles I.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[SheungWan]

 
My experience shows that what remainers usually perceive as being signs of an incredibly rude and unsightly nature of personality is when someone points out to them that they are wrong. It becomes even nastier if the person in question moreover is able to explicate exactly WHY the remainer is wrong, and in addition, is prepared to show empirical facts that clearly exemplifies how crazy the remainer's arguments might be. In the event of such case, the remainer is clearly dealing with an asocial madman who – in the event that the remainer is totally unable to defend his complete and utter lack of knowledge – should be subject to name-calling and racism to prevent this sinister character from revealing the remainer's incompetence by providing sound statements supported by empirical facts – which is apparently perceived as being a “Brexiteer”.
 
With that in mind, I will continue to be as big "Brexiteer” as I possibly can.

Brexiteers beating own drum.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[SheungWan]

Forums are made for discussing topics with like-minded people expressing their serious opinions and concerns….in this case Brexit. 
welovesundaysatspace made his level of concern clear when he said “I really don’t care. It’s just a big amusement.”
You have to ask the question what is his point in being on this thread if it's only for fun, it shows a lack of respect for serious contributors on both sides of the argument.
 

 

He probably gets some of his amusement from Hard Brexiteers getting somewhat pompous on a regular basis. Now lets get back to the risk of shortages. Not that the Brexiteers care one jot. All is subservient to their nationalist fantasies.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Forethat]

43 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

He probably gets some of his amusement from Hard Brexiteers getting somewhat pompous on a regular basis. Now lets get back to the risk of shortages. Not that the Brexiteers care one jot. All is subservient to their nationalist fantasies.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Nationalist fantasies? Are you talking about the ones referring to posters as "Johnny Foreigner"? Yup, that sounds about right...

[bristolboy]

9 hours ago, Forethat said:

 

My experience shows that what remainers usually perceive as being signs of an incredibly rude and unsightly nature of personality is when someone points out to them that they are wrong. It becomes even nastier if the person in question moreover is able to explicate exactly WHY the remainer is wrong, and in addition, is prepared to show empirical facts that clearly exemplifies how crazy the remainer's arguments might be. In the event of such case, the remainer is clearly dealing with an asocial madman who – in the event that the remainer is totally unable to defend his complete and utter lack of knowledge – should be subject to name-calling and racism to prevent this sinister character from revealing the remainer's incompetence by providing sound statements supported by empirical facts – which is apparently perceived as being a “Brexiteer”.

 

With that in mind, I will continue to be as big "Brexiteer” as I possibly can.

Recognize this?

 

"So, stop worrying about the food, medicines, cars and champagne. You see, if we don't buy those products from the French and the Germans, THEY will go bankrupt and be miserable. WE can buy the stuff from someone else. How's that for negotiating position...? "

(page 4 post #57)

 

It's richly comical that someone who wrote the preceding arithmetically ridiculous conclusion could profess to be the voice of reason. 

•  

[Forethat]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Recognize this?

 

"So, stop worrying about the food, medicines, cars and champagne. You see, if we don't buy those products from the French and the Germans, THEY will go bankrupt and be miserable. WE can buy the stuff from someone else. How's that for negotiating position...? "

 

It's richly comical that someone who wrote the preceding arithmetically ridiculous conclusion could profess to be the voice of reason. 

•  

I'd be happy to answer a question or enter a debate, but I'm afraid you've forgotten to point out what you find so ridiculous. Why don't you have another go at it?

[transam]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Recognize this?

 

"So, stop worrying about the food, medicines, cars and champagne. You see, if we don't buy those products from the French and the Germans, THEY will go bankrupt and be miserable. WE can buy the stuff from someone else. How's that for negotiating position...? "

 

It's richly comical that someone who wrote the preceding arithmetically ridiculous conclusion could profess to be the voice of reason. 

•  

So you are reckon business blokes in the EU will be stomping their feet telling UK..."Not selling you our stuff"......?

[Forethat]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

So you are reckon business blokes in the EU will be stomping their feet telling UK..."Not selling you our stuff"......?

Especially the French producers of wine, fruit and vegetables - they'll all line up outside Élysée Palace to thank Macron personally for the privilege of not selling to the British. 

[Jip99]

3 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Especially the French producers of wine, fruit and vegetables - they'll all line up outside Élysée Palace to thank Macron personally for the privilege of not selling to the British. 

 

 

 

Yellow vest manufacturers will have a field day.

[bristolboy]

21 minutes ago, Forethat said:

I'd be happy to answer a question or enter a debate, but I'm afraid you've forgotten to point out what you find so ridiculous. Why don't you have another go at it?

I thought it was too obvious to mention. Especially since the flaw in this line of reasoning has been exposed over and over again.

All you have to do is compare, on the one hand, the percentage of exports to the UK of total GDP of any EU country, and on the other hand ,compare the percentage of exports to the EU of the UK's total GDP.  Who comes out the loser by that computation?

Have you ever bothered to look at those numbers. And do you understand that in aggregate the EU economy minus the UK is still about 6 times the size of the UK's?

[aright]

19 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I thought it was too obvious to mention. Especially since the flaw in this line of reasoning has been exposed over and over again.

All you have to do is compare, on the one hand, the percentage of exports to the UK of total GDP of any EU country, and on the other hand ,compare the percentage of exports to the EU of the UK's total GDP.  Who comes out the loser by that computation?

Have you ever bothered to look at those numbers. And do you understand that in aggregate the EU economy minus the UK is still about 6 times the size of the UK's?

This thread is about food and possible shortages not gross import/exports. Try to focus on wine fruit, vegetables etc..

[Forethat]

39 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I thought it was too obvious to mention. Especially since the flaw in this line of reasoning has been exposed over and over again.

All you have to do is compare, on the one hand, the percentage of exports to the UK of total GDP of any EU country, and on the other hand ,compare the percentage of exports to the EU of the UK's total GDP.  Who comes out the loser by that computation?

Have you ever bothered to look at those numbers. And do you understand that in aggregate the EU economy minus the UK is still about 6 times the size of the UK?

 

I don't know how familiar you are with macroeconomics and mathematics, but generally speaking (and from a short term economic perspective), a retained EU-membership must be considered the globally optimal solution (that's not an arbitrary evaluation, it's a mathematical term you might want to google) as this benefits all parties involved (UK, France, Germany etc.). However, as the globally optimal solution is an unstable state, a Nash equilibrium state seems more probable in case of Brexit as this is the only possible stable state outcome (all parties minimise their losses to a known level). 

 

I appreciate that your view is that "UK will lose MORE than EU, therefore UK is the loser", but that is not how economies work (and I'll skip any references to comedy, naivety and similar...). EU will want to minimise their losses, and the only way they can do that is by minimising UK:s.  "How much" is irrelevant.

 

Happy to have helped out.

[transam]

26 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I thought it was too obvious to mention. Especially since the flaw in this line of reasoning has been exposed over and over again.

All you have to do is compare, on the one hand, the percentage of exports to the UK of total GDP of any EU country, and on the other hand ,compare the percentage of exports to the EU of the UK's total GDP.  Who comes out the loser by that computation?

Have you ever bothered to look at those numbers. And do you understand that in aggregate the EU economy minus the UK is still about 6 times the size of the UK's?

And the population ratio is.....?

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Forethat said:

 

I don't know how familiar you are with macroeconomics and mathematics, but generally speaking (and from a short term economic perspective), a retained EU-membership must be considered the globally optimal solution (that's not an arbitrary evaluation, it's a mathematical term you might want to google) as this benefits all parties involved (UK, France, Germany etc.). However, as the globally optimal solution is an unstable state, a Nash equilibrium state seems more probable in case of Brexit as this is the only possible stable state outcome (all parties minimise their losses to a known level). 

 

I appreciate that your view is that "UK will lose MORE than EU, therefore UK is the loser", but that is not how economies work (and I'll skip any references to comedy, naivety and similar...). EU will want to minimise their losses, and the only way they can do that is by minimising UK:s.  "How much" is irrelevant.

 

Happy to have helped out.

Now you're just resorting to nonsense

"In game theory, the Nash equilibrium, named after the mathematician John Forbes Nash Jr., is a proposed solution of a non-cooperative game involving two or more players in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only their own strategy."

 

Maybe someday, when quantum computing is an everyday thing, it might be possible to bring economies to an equilibrium state. But as things stand, that's a long way off. And of course, the Nath theorem is about non-cooperative games. An actually economy is a mix of cooperation and competition. Why do you post such nonsense? Maybe because you haven't actually got an honest answer?

 

And the fact is that you claimed that no exports to the UK would mean bankruptcies for Germany and France. Both nations export a far smaller percentage of their GDP to the UK than the UK does to the EU. Even if your invocation of the Nash theorem was valid, which it clearly is not, the UK would still go belly up in such a situation, long before France or Germany.

 

Instead of consulting Nash, you might take a look at Orwell and the concept of doublethink. You've got one set of rules for thinking about the UK and another for thinking about the rest of the EU. 

[Forethat]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Now you're just resorting to nonsense

"In game theory, the Nash equilibrium, named after the mathematician John Forbes Nash Jr., is a proposed solution of a non-cooperative game involving two or more players in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only their own strategy."

 

Maybe someday, when quantum computing is an everyday thing, it might be possible to bring economies to an equilibrium state. But as things stand, that's a long way off. And of course, the Nath theorem is about non-cooperative games. An actually economy is a mix of cooperation and competition. Why do you post such nonsense? Maybe because you haven't actually got an honest answer?

 

And the fact is that you claimed that no exports to the UK would mean bankruptcies for Germany and France. Both nations export a far smaller percentage of their GDP to the UK than the UK does to the EU. Even if your invocation of the Nash theorem was valid, which it clearly is not, the UK would still go belly up in such a situation, long before France or Germany.

 

Instead of consulting Nash, you might take a look at Orwell and the concept of doublethink. You've got one set of rules for thinking about the UK and another for thinking about the rest of the EU. 

If you had read my post you would have realised that I'm not suggesting that UK would be worse off compared to EU, or vice versa. I'm suggesting that the more likely outcome is that both parties opt for a solution where the known damage is at a minimum. Instead of consulting Google perhaps you might want to actually comprehend the concepts behind the quotes (I actually wrote it in clear text, but you missed that. As well)?

 

Happy to explain this further in case you need guidance.  

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Forethat said:

If you had read my post you would have realised that I'm not suggesting that UK would be worse off compared to EU, or vice versa. I'm suggesting that the more likely outcome is that both parties opt for a solution where the known damage is at a minimum. Instead of consulting Google perhaps you might want to actually comprehend the concepts behind the quotes (I actually wrote it in clear text, but you missed that. As well)?

 

Happy to explain this further in case you need guidance.  

First explain to me why you claimed the France and Germany would go bankrupt if their exports to the UK were cut off.

"So, stop worrying about the food, medicines, cars and champagne. You see, if we don't buy those products from the French and the Germans, THEY will go bankrupt and be miserable. WE can buy the stuff from someone else. How's that for negotiating position...?" 

[Forethat]

36 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

First explain to me why you claimed the France and Germany would go bankrupt if their exports to the UK were cut off.

"So, stop worrying about the food, medicines, cars and champagne. You see, if we don't buy those products from the French and the Germans, THEY will go bankrupt and be miserable. WE can buy the stuff from someone else. How's that for negotiating position...?" 

Firstly, France can't sustain their economy if 14% of their agricultural production (≈€4,8bn) and a total of ≈€6,1bn of their export is void. They'd go bankrupt and be miserable. Personally, I see French farmers blocking every road in France as an even more viable threat to their economy. As if the French didn't have enough issues with the yellow vests (btw, when was the last time you saw a report on BBC about the weekly yellow vest demonstrations in Paris?)...

 

As I said, no one wants the economy to collapse. Not even the French. For the remainers, well I'm not so sure, but I'm glad posters on here don't show up at my office to sort out the mess I'm dealing with (and there are some of you who knows exactly where I'm working)...

 

Secondly, Germany.....nah...you're not paying attention anyway so I'm not going to bother....

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, Victornoir said:

Everywhere in Europe, we are laughing at the British arrogance, which still think to be a vital outlet for other countries.

We come to these forums as for the show, to also observe how the braggart will try to validate the unjustifiable.

But here, the blusters and pretensions of some poses a real mental health problem.

British say the French are the most arrogant people in Europe - and the French agree ☺️

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10055933/British-say-the-French-are-the-most-arrogant-people-in-Europe-and-the-French-agree.html

[luckyluke]

8 minutes ago, Victornoir said:

Everywhere in Europe, we are laughing at the British arrogance,

 

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

British say the French are the most arrogant people in Europe

Must be the language ????

[bristolboy]

16 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Firstly, France can't sustain their economy if 14% of their agricultural production (≈€4,8bn) and a total of ≈€6,1bn of their export is void. They'd go bankrupt and be miserable. Personally, I see French farmers blocking every road in France as an even more viable threat to their economy. As if the French didn't have enough issues with the yellow vests (btw, when was the last time you saw a report on BBC about the weekly yellow vest demonstrations in Paris?)...

 

As I said, no one wants the economy to collapse. Not even the French. For the remainers, well I'm not so sure, but I'm glad posters on here don't show up at my office to sort out the mess I'm dealing with (and there are some of you who knows exactly where I'm working)...

 

Secondly, Germany.....nah...you're not paying attention anyway so I'm not going to bother....

"Secondly, Germany.....nah...you're not paying attention anyway so I'm not going to bother..."

False, Your problem with me is that I pay very close attention to what you write and hold you accountable for it. You're the one who claimed the Germans and the French would go bankrupt if trade was cut off with the UK. (And seem curiously incapable of understanding what a far more severe effect such a cutoff in trade would have on the UK) And you've yet to come up with any plausible argument to support that. Instead you supply persiflage about the Nash Equilibrium. 

And now there's this nonsense

"Firstly, France can't sustain their economy if 14% of their agricultural production (≈€4,8bn) and a total of ≈€6,1bn of their export is void. They'd go bankrupt and be miserable."

France's total GDP is virtually the same as the UK's. In 2018 it came to about 2.286 trillion euros.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/469624/france-gdp/

So if France were to lose about 4.8 billion euros in agricultural exports that would amount to about 0.25 percent of French GDP.

And you think that this loss would mean that France couldn't sustain its economy? This is your idea of an economic shock big enough to upend France? A 0.25 percent loss in GDP Really? 

But if that's the case, think of the devastation that a cutoff of UK food exports to the EU would mean. in 2018 British food exports to the EU totaled 15 billion euros. 

https://www.fdf.org.uk/exports-2018-q4.aspx