May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[Flustered]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Stormont talks look to have failed due to DUP intransigence. Direct rule coming.

 

This IS a DISASTER.

 

I fear for the Good Friday agreement

Or it could read Stormont talks look to have failed due to Sinn Fein intransigence. Direct rule coming.

 

This IS a DISASTER.

 

I fear for the Good Friday agreement

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

I don't see the relevance of your post. Please explain.

 

The money spent by both sides was regulated. 9M is money from the back of the sofa. DUP just got 150x that

If you read back through the string you should see the relevance - if you can't then I can't help you. This money was used for a pro- remain spiel by the Cameron government way before the the DUP arrangement was even dreamed of, and leavers had to pay for it! 

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, jpinx said:

I understand the language, but under what authority is the EU acting?  UK is leaving and still submits to what is basically a whim of the Eurocrats? 

Their own authority - the UK is still a member of the EU.

 

Submit or we will add another 100bn to the bill? That would help fill the hole for 5 years or so!

 

 

[Grouse]

48 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Well if was in charge get rid of Nth. Ireland.  

You'll have to explain that...

[Flustered]

It's all beginning to come out of the woodwork now. No wonder the EU is trying desperately to screw the UK.

 

 On the Euro News on TV today, European budget commissioner Günther Oettinger said the EU may have to make a 16% cut to it's budget due to the UK leaving.

 

I wonder  why the BBC are not reporting these interesting bits of news.

 

And then we have

 

"Brexit could blow a €20 billion black hole in the EU's budget"

http://uk.businessinsider.com/eu-fears-brexit-will-create-20-billion-budget-black-hole-2017-6

[Flustered]

And further digging reveals this paper.

 

It takes some reading and while a discussion piece, indicates the way forward in the EU by closer co-operation (control by Brussels) and taxation of certain areas as a way the EU can raise even more revenue. For example:

 

Gross National Income, Corporate tax,  Seigniorage (central bank currency issuance), Custom duties, Carbon pricing, Financial Transaction Tax (FTT), VAT, Electricity, Motor Fuel, EU travel and authorisation system (ETIAS)

 

We have really dodged a bullet if this paper were to be implemented even in parts.

 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/reflection-paper-eu-finances_en.pdf

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, Flustered said:

And further digging reveals this paper.

 

It takes some reading and while a discussion piece, indicates the way forward in the EU by closer co-operation (control by Brussels) and taxation of certain areas as a way the EU can raise even more revenue. For example:

 

Gross National Income, Corporate tax,  Seigniorage (central bank currency issuance), Custom duties, Carbon pricing, Financial Transaction Tax (FTT), VAT, Electricity, Motor Fuel, EU travel and authorisation system (ETIAS)

 

We have really dodged a bullet if this paper were to be implemented even in parts.

 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/reflection-paper-eu-finances_en.pdf

And any rebates will disappear! 

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, jpinx said:

I understand the language, but under what authority is the EU acting?  UK is leaving and still submits to what is basically a whim of the Eurocrats? 

The submission rate has been exponentially increasing for the last 44 years   !

[Flustered]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

Stormont talks look to have failed due to DUP intransigence. Direct rule coming.

 

This IS a DISASTER.

 

I fear for the Good Friday agreement

Is this what you consider DUP intransigence?

 

"The split between Sinn Fein and the DUP appears to be over a handful of crucial issues, the biggest of which is Sinn Fein's demand for an Irish language act to give Irish parity with English in Northern Ireland."

http://uk.businessinsider.com/northern-ireland-talks-will-miss-deadline-for-executive-2017-6

 

This is just a ploy by Sinn Fein to destroy the relationship.

 

[mommysboy]

4 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

The issue about not being able to deals whilst still being a member of the EU is a sideshow. The Uk went to India last year in an attempt to gain a favourable start to trade, but the stumbling block was visa's for indian nationals.

The problem for the UK is whilst still being a member of the EU , how deep can the negotations with other countries  go, without knowing what the EU agreement will be .

The real problem is that we can get people to sell to us, but not buy.  And we'll just be swapping EU immigrants for Indian, etc.  The point is our natural market, due to its proximity, is Europe.  And we are swapping a good trade pact for a bad one no matter what deal we get.

 

Leaving EU is not the answer, though it must happen for the sake of democracy.  The real solution is some form of exporting renaissance.

 

It's madness really.

[Flustered]

14 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 And we are swapping a good trade pact for a bad one no matter what deal we get.

 

 

How is a £60 Billion a year deficit a good trade pact?

[mommysboy]

16 minutes ago, Flustered said:

How is a £60 Billion a year deficit a good trade pact?

It's not. That's a bad trade imbalance.  That's due to the nature of our economy and it will just shift elsewhere when we leave.  The point is we'll still need imports, and our exports won't automatically recover, why would they?

 

What I am referring to is the terms of trade: unlimited access, mutually low or no tariffs, zero trade barriers, etc. 

 

It's not all black- some fudges will simply have to take place.  Contrary to what is written the EU can't simply upsticks it's financial sector from UK.  But what it is doing is tightening the regulatory system so it has control.  Thus we are ceding sovereignty if you like.  My guess is that will happen across other sectors, so effectively it will be much the same deal, only worse than what we have now.

 

And from our inferior position, we'll have to agree to concessions with USA and India, etc. It's not a good position.

 

Our real problem is easily defined- less easily resolved- we simply do not produce goods and services that are more desirable than those of other countries!!

Edited June 29, 2017 by mommysboy

[Flustered]

Just now, mommysboy said:

It's not. That's a bad trade imbalance.  That's due to the nature of our economy and it will just shift elsewhere when we leave.  The point is we'll still need imports, and our exports won't automatically recover, why would they?

 

What I am referring to is the terms of trade: unlimited access, mutually low or no tariffs, zero trade barriers, etc. 

 

It's not all black- some fudges will simply have to take place.  Contrary to what is written the EU can't simply upsticks it's financial sector from UK.  But what it is doing is tightening the regulatory system so it has control.  Thus we are ceding sovereignty if you like.  My guess is that will happen across other sectors, so effectively it will be much the same deal, only worse than what we have now.

 

And from our inferior position, we'll have to agree to concessions with USA and India, etc. It's not a good position.

So as I said, it's not a good trade pact. In language many can understand, it sucks.

 

We loose £60 billion a year in trade to the EU along with our £10 Billion contribution. Think about it.

[mommysboy]

Just now, Flustered said:

So as I said, it's not a good trade pact. In language many can understand, it sucks.

 

We loose £60 billion a year in trade to the EU along with our £10 Billion contribution. Think about it.

 

I understand your thinking, but the point is that we will still need imports won't we?  And so the cost of these will just be spread among other countries, while the cost of imports from EU will rise presumably since we will not benefit from low tariffs (perhaps).  Our exports to EU, already low, will be negatively impacted.

 

Take lamb for instance: say we buy from Ireland.  Currently there are no tariffs (I think), but when we leave there will be.  Maybe, we will buy from New Zealand.  Yet I can't imagine it can be cheaper and will probably be more expensive.  Will a treaty with NZ help our exports?  In theory yes, but the dramatic drop in the pound did little to boost exports to NZ (I think).  Maybe it's a bad example and I'm sure someone will correct me if wrong, but the underlying point is axiomatic.

 

The 10 billion, incredible for us, is peanuts in the scheme of things.  And if we secure some sectors we will need to pay a fee, as Norway does.  It's a damned cheek, but there it is.

 

 

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

You'll have to explain that...

With respect l don't expect you to agree with a maverick like me also l can't explain because England getting rid of hangers on like Nth.Ireland, Scotland and Wales is probably never gonna happen,  just happy IMO being out of the EU club that's a start.

 

Don't expect anyone to agree with me either but this my take.

Set aside all the hype of benefits to NHS etc etc !!  No-one with any sense thought it was gonna be an easy get out, except a contrary mob of now that have doubts, hence the recent election result.

 

When the mambi-pambi EU gets so called tough England should be an England again,  tell em you can stick you motors we will use Japanese, stick your wine & cheese etc etc we'll buy elsewhere, stick your European companies get out we'll get someone else, that could be just for starter, and another you mess with us we will pull out of NATO. 

I could go but sadly l don't think anyone in government has got guts they just wanna stay as a American puppet. 

 

Am l the only person that thinks England can't deal with Canada, Australia,  New Zealand, Brasil, Japan & China and other Asia countries along with Russia.

 

[jpinx]

It's becoming very clear that the EU is now worried about it's own budget, hence the thinly veiled threats to the brexit negotiations and increases in the estimated cost to UK for the get out.  It vindicates those of us who said that Cameron should have taken the original referendum result and walked out of Brussels with all the UK's EU members in his wake.  Empty seats in Brussels would have been the best answer, but -- as usual -- not a single politician had the guts to follow-through on a decision.

 

Now the position is similar - if the EU want to play hard ball about the negotiations and the costs they should be facing the serious risk of a UK walk-out.   *They* can patch the hole in *their* budget -- UK will do just fine without being told who they are allowed to immigrate into the UK and who to negotiate trade deals with and how the other EU members have to toe the EU line.

 

Is it just me or am I seeing the most cowardly people imaginable trying to lead us into yet another fine mess?

Edited June 29, 2017 by jpinx

[Flustered]

57 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

I understand your thinking, but the point is that we will still need imports won't we?  And so the cost of these will just be spread among other countries, while the cost of imports from EU will rise presumably since we will not benefit from low tariffs (perhaps).  Our exports to EU, already low, will be negatively impacted.

 

Take lamb for instance: say we buy from Ireland.  Currently there are no tariffs (I think), but when we leave there will be.  Maybe, we will buy from New Zealand.  Yet I can't imagine it can be cheaper and will probably be more expensive.  Will a treaty with NZ help our exports?  In theory yes, but the dramatic drop in the pound did little to boost exports to NZ (I think).  Maybe it's a bad example and I'm sure someone will correct me if wrong, but the underlying point is axiomatic.

 

The 10 billion, incredible for us, is peanuts in the scheme of things.  And if we secure some sectors we will need to pay a fee, as Norway does.  It's a damned cheek, but there it is.

 

 

Many of our current imports from the EU would be cheaper if we bought them elsewhere. We have to buy from outside the EU at tariffs set by the agreements the EU have in place with these countries. Most of the South American countries have tariffs on produce of around 30%. Spain has asked for South Africa to be included in the list of non EU countries attracting a 16% import tariff. The full list of EU impssed tariffs is well documented.

 

Re New Zealand lamb, we already import more lamb from New Zealand (74%) than Ireland (6%) and at a cheaper price. Many of the EU tariffs are detrimental to us as they are in place to protect mainland countries such as France and Spain.

 

The tariffs set in the WTO agreement are actually beneficial to us vis a vis the EU agreements.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Flustered

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Flustered said:

How is a £60 Billion a year deficit a good trade pact?

So you're blaming the EU for the UK's trade deficit. Let's take a look at what is a relative bright spot for the UK: trade with the USA. In 2016 the UK ran a surplus of slightly more than 1 billion dollars.  France ran a surplus with the USA of more than 15.5 billion dollars.  Italy over 28 billion dollars. Germany ran a surplus with the USA of more than 64 billion dollars. Sweden with a population that is about 1/7 of the UK's ran a surplus with the USA of almost 6 billion dollars. Denmark, with a population less than 1/10 th of the UK ran a surplus of 5.7 billion.  And yet, in the minds of some, it's the EU's fault that UK exports are so anemic.

[Khun Han]

8 hours ago, Flustered said:

The day you understand politics and the EU better than me will be when I am pushing up daisies.

 

You have constantly shown a complete lack of understanding and failed to contribute anything useful to any conversation.

 

Are you related to the Strawman?

 

I doubt it, but it wouldn't surprise me if onthesoi is related to the loathsome Christy Sweet.

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, mommysboy said:

The real problem is that we can get people to sell to us, but not buy.  And we'll just be swapping EU immigrants for Indian, etc.  The point is our natural market, due to its proximity, is Europe.  And we are swapping a good trade pact for a bad one no matter what deal we get.

 

Leaving EU is not the answer, though it must happen for the sake of democracy.  The real solution is some form of exporting renaissance.

 

It's madness really.

 

Yes, correct, we must leave the EU for the sake of democracy. Because, if we don't, a short few years down the line we will have been absorbed by a European superstate with Germany pulling most of the strings. And, guess what? Germany will be putting Germany first, and the trading and financial relations that seem so attractive now will have changed in Germany's favour. And we won't be able to do a damn thing about it by that point.

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, mommysboy said:

It's not. That's a bad trade imbalance.  That's due to the nature of our economy and it will just shift elsewhere when we leave.  The point is we'll still need imports, and our exports won't automatically recover, why would they?

 

What I am referring to is the terms of trade: unlimited access, mutually low or no tariffs, zero trade barriers, etc. 

 

It's not all black- some fudges will simply have to take place.  Contrary to what is written the EU can't simply upsticks it's financial sector from UK.  But what it is doing is tightening the regulatory system so it has control.  Thus we are ceding sovereignty if you like.  My guess is that will happen across other sectors, so effectively it will be much the same deal, only worse than what we have now.

 

And from our inferior position, we'll have to agree to concessions with USA and India, etc. It's not a good position.

 

Our real problem is easily defined- less easily resolved- we simply do not produce goods and services that are more desirable than those of other countries!!

 

our exports won't automatically recover, why would they?

 

Because we will be free to sell our products to markets at prices negotiated directly by us, instead of having to go through the EU and being frozen out of some markets?

[mommysboy]

7 hours ago, jpinx said:

It's becoming very clear that the EU is now worried about it's own budget, hence the thinly veiled threats to the brexit negotiations and increases in the estimated cost to UK for the get out.  It vindicates those of us who said that Cameron should have taken the original referendum result and walked out of Brussels with all the UK's EU members in his wake.  Empty seats in Brussels would have been the best answer, but -- as usual -- not a single politician had the guts to follow-through on a decision.

 

Now the position is similar - if the EU want to play hard ball about the negotiations and the costs they should be facing the serious risk of a UK walk-out.   *They* can patch the hole in *their* budget -- UK will do just fine without being told who they are allowed to immigrate into the UK and who to negotiate trade deals with and how the other EU members have to toe the EU line.

 

Is it just me or am I seeing the most cowardly people imaginable trying to lead us into yet another fine mess?

It could not have been handled worse.  Yes, there is some truth in saying we should have just walked.  I said this right from the start.  But imo the best solution would have been to rip up that damned referendum result!  You see it never really gave a clear mandate, half wanted out, half didn't, and the same with the countries that comprise UK.

[pitrevie]

Philip Hammond conceded that Brexit will blow a £59bn black hole in the public finances. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) announced that there would be a cumulative £122bn of extra borrowing over the next five years, with £59bn of that as a direct result of Brexit. George Osborne was expecting to achieve a surplus of £11bn on the public finances by 2020-21; instead, the OBR is now forecasting a £21bn deficit – and public debt is expected to peak at more than 90% of GDP.

 

It must be terrible for the remaining 27 countries of the EU having to deal with a 20 billion Euro black hole when they could go it alone and have a 59 billion pound black hole or to compare directly 67 billion Euro black hole.

[ilostmypassword]

7 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

our exports won't automatically recover, why would they?

 

Because we will be free to sell our products to markets at prices negotiated directly by us, instead of having to go through the EU and being frozen out of some markets?

Look at post7278 just above and explain how the EU is responsible for UK export anemia.

[mommysboy]

7 hours ago, Flustered said:

Many of our current imports from the EU would be cheaper if we bought them elsewhere. We have to buy from outside the EU at tariffs set by the agreements the EU have in place with these countries. Most of the South American countries have tariffs on produce of around 30%. Spain has asked for South Africa to be included in the list of non EU countries attracting a 16% import tariff. The full list of EU impssed tariffs is well documented.

 

Re New Zealand lamb, we already import more lamb from New Zealand (74%) than Ireland (6%) and at a cheaper price. Many of the EU tariffs are detrimental to us as they are in place to protect mainland countries such as France and Spain.

 

The tariffs set in the WTO agreement are actually beneficial to us vis a vis the EU agreements.

 

That still doesn't address the systemic imbalance in our trade.   Your posting just gives examples of how we might cut some prices on some imports and at least that is heartening.  I can imagine (I don't know) that some prices will go up- geography is not with us and the pound is more likely to weaken than strengthen.  People have taken it for granted that we will sail in to some trade deals, but even the WHO don't work fast.  Also loss of inward tariffs represent loss of public revenue.

 

The example of Irish lamb was a bad one, but as I said the underlying axiom is sound.  But all this notwithstanding we are taking an enormous gamble.  You have business sense.  Can you honestly say that if someone came with such a proposition involving your capital that you wouldn't laugh them out the office?

 

 

[mommysboy]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

Look at post7278 just above and explain how the EU is responsible for UK export anemia.

 

When the pound dropped significantly it did little to boost exports. Moreover our trading base is very low.  It takes ages to reverse these things. The main point is we don't produce much that other countries want or have the huge volume markets, except in financial services.  Unless it is fundamentally accepted that our productivity is poor, that our industry is under funded, and that we don't manage well, then nothing will change.

 

If some change is made, then that will be good, but it will also emphasise the futility of leaving the EU as these more important changes would undoubtedly also redress the trade imbalance with the EU.

 

These are moot points.  The fact is we are leaving and no doubt we will make it work somehow.  But in this instance the situation will be no different from the person that digs a hole for himself, struggles to get out of it and then spends the rest of the week filling it again.

 

To give another analogy- football haters bear with me.  England has failed to compete on a European (and world) level for some time- falling well short of peer countries. The FA ploughed resources in to an academy (St Georges). Now for the first time in decades we have actually started winning with U20s and performing much better across all age groups.  My point, it is only systemic change that brought that about.

 

 

[mommysboy]

21 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

Philip Hammond conceded that Brexit will blow a £59bn black hole in the public finances. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) announced that there would be a cumulative £122bn of extra borrowing over the next five years, with £59bn of that as a direct result of Brexit. George Osborne was expecting to achieve a surplus of £11bn on the public finances by 2020-21; instead, the OBR is now forecasting a £21bn deficit – and public debt is expected to peak at more than 90% of GDP.

 

It must be terrible for the remaining 27 countries of the EU having to deal with a 20 billion Euro black hole when they could go it alone and have a 59 billion pound black hole or to compare directly 67 billion Euro black hole.

Agreed.  We are leaving at a time when the country has also faced the longest period of austerity on record.  The economy was recovering quite well.  Instead we now face another lost decade of growth. The timing is all wrong.

[pitrevie]

7 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

When the pound dropped significantly it did little to boost exports. Moreover our trading base is very low.  It takes ages to reverse these things. The main point is we don't produce much that other countries want or have the huge volume markets, except in financial services.  Unless it is fundamentally accepted that our productivity is poor, that our industry is under funded, and that we don't manage well, then nothing will change.

 

If some change is made, then that will be good, but it will also emphasise the futility of leaving the EU as these more important changes would undoubtedly also redress the trade imbalance with the EU.

 

These are moot points.  The fact is we are leaving and no doubt we will make it work somehow.  But in this instance the situation will be no different from the person that digs a hole for himself, struggles to get out of it and then spends the rest of the week filling it again.

 

To give another analogy- football haters bear with me.  England has failed to compete on a European (and world) level for some time- falling well short of peer countries. The FA ploughed resources in to an academy (St Georges). Now for the first time in decades we have actually started winning with U20s and performing much better across all age groups.  My point, it is only systemic change that brought that about.

 

 

Professor Minford (The former adviser to Margaret Thatcher) Vote Leave economist advocated Brexit while admitting Brexit would 'mostly eliminate manufacturing. 

[Kwasaki]

15 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

To give another analogy- football haters bear with me.  England has failed to compete on a European (and world) level for some time- falling well short of peer countries.

7 hours ago, Khun Han said:

Germany pulling most of the strings. And, guess what? Germany will be putting Germany first,

Yep and have won the football final in Russia. 

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, jpinx said:

Indeed -- but a good poker player can cope with multiple "hands".  It points more to the ineptitude of the politicians in how they might conduct these early negotiations.  I can't believe they are so spineless as to be afraid that the EU would make a new UK-EU trade deal more difficult.  The remaining members need the UK's trade and will not be happy.!  

You were probably right in a previous comment in that what can be done will be done prior to leaving. It is highly unlikely the EU will make an issue out of it as it wouldn't really be in their interest.

The real problem is the practical aspect. If I remember right the first panic after the referendum was over the number of competent UK trade negotiators, there wasn't enough to deal with the EU far less anyone else.

Another problem is of clarification. Current trade with the US, largest outside the EU, is currently carried out under EU WTO arrangements but their is a difference of opinion over whether that can continue and may require a legal ruling. The White House has ruled out a bilateral agreement any time soon.

Its a bit the same with India and it should be noted that India has never concluded a trade deal with a western country.

Although Australia and Canada have indicated the possibility of a bilateral agreement it is very unlikely that could be anywhere near concluded by March 2019.