Brexit - Post Match Reaction

A new customs arrangement that looks and feels the same as the current customs union but technically not a customs union. The old switcheroo

 

https://www.ft.com/content/b58ca3b6-811c-11e7-a4ce-15b2513cb3ff

"The UK paper will say the government is optimistic that the EU will allow trade secretary Liam Fox to negotiate new trade deals during the transition."

Cake & eat it territory. Fully supported by both sides of the Government.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-trump-movie-is-coming-2017-8

Something to look forward to. What a great idea.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seems like some if the remoaners are trying to hijack Southamptons #wemarchon hashtag.

Seems like some if the remoaners are trying to hijack Southamptons #wemarchon hashtag.

Good lad.

In less important news, Brexit customs plan threatens to increase obstacles to trade. Business faces greater red tape under proposals set out by the government. So glad we're freeing ourselves from the dead hand and dirigisme of the EU.

https://www.ft.com/content/25e8643c-81b4-11e7-a4ce-15b2513cb3ff

Of course it does. so what? We do documentation for all our imports outside the EU as it is. Takes no time at all.

At least we'll be able to set our own import tariffs.

Of course it does. so what? We do documentation for all our imports outside the EU as it is. Takes no time at all.

 

At least we'll be able to set our own import tariffs.

If only the world was as simple as peddling fruit and veg, right pal?

If only the world was as simple as peddling fruit and veg, right pal?

I think there are a lot more sectors that have to jump through a lot less hops than we have to 'pal'.

Like cars and aerospace?

Like cars and aerospace?

and pharmaceuticals, electronics and arms. All much less paperwork than apples

Really makes you wonder how Australia, Canada & countless other nations get by without joining together in ever closer union. How on earth do they trade without freedom of movement. They must be really struggling without a multi national flag, anthem & parliament. How on earth do they manage?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

and pharmaceuticals, electronics and arms. All much less paperwork than apples

Simple, it is not.

Really makes you wonder how Australia, Canada & countless other nations get by without joining together in ever closer union. How on earth do they trade without freedom of movement. They must be really struggling without a multi national flag, anthem & parliament. How on earth do they manage?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The likes of Australia , Canada and New Zealand are all clamouring for closer ties to the EU.......

The likes of Australia , Canada and New Zealand are all clamouring for closer ties to the EU.......

Ever closer union?

Free movement?

A parliament?

Flag?

Anthem?

Currency?

Or just a free trade agreement?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really makes you wonder how Australia, Canada & countless other nations get by without joining together in ever closer union. How on earth do they trade without freedom of movement. They must be really struggling without a multi national flag, anthem & parliament. How on earth do they manage?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps they trade less with each other than they would do if they had some of these things. Evidence suggests that this is indeed the case.

You haven't seen the list of pesticides and fungicides that consignments are tested for have you. Let alone the list of protectionist conformities that the citrus growing Spanish, or top fruit growing French make us have on outside EU imports.

 

Simple, it is not.

You realise that the paperwork is kept to a minimum because it applies the same regulation that underpins the single market? What happens when the EU adds or updates it's regulatory standards? Will the UK mirror whatever comes out of the EU to maintain regulatory convergence in the future? How does that constitute taking back control? Or will the UK strike its own regulatory path in the area of pesticides and fungicides #cheapjunk (among other things) in which case you can damn well expect an explosion of customs checks to ensure that fruit and veg imported into the EU conform to EU standards?

Perhaps they trade less with each other than they would do if they had some of these things. Evidence suggests that this is indeed the case.

Interesting you used the phrase "some" of these things. EU insists on "all" of it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting you used the phrase "some" of these things. EU insists on "all" of it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep the phrase is deliberate. The EU isn't just about trade. It was originally set up to prevent great power conflict. A victim of its own success it has expanded to solve challenges -from terrorism through climate change to economic spillovers that do not respect national boundaries. I have no problem with the limited pooling of sovereignty in these circumstances. Alas too many have a pampered and entitled view of history to recognise how fragile these benefits are.

Interesting you used the phrase "some" of these things. EU insists on "all" of it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For those on here that think a lower £ is all bad news

Tourism booming...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40972840

UK food and drink exports at a record high

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40963631

Nothing we didn't already know:

Trump is ‘hostile to trade’, says American advising UK

 

Former White House official Pippa Malmgren warns there is no ‘magic’ trade deal

https://www.ft.com/content/83e6bdda-8372-11e7-94e2-c5b903247afd

Anyone see Minford's paper at the weekend? The 1970s wants it's economist back. It was probably something re-hashed from an IEA speech back in the day.

Anyone see Minford's paper at the weekend? The 1970s wants it's economist back. It was probably something re-hashed from an IEA speech back in the day.

Minford lectured me at university in the early years of this century and all the other Profs in the Economics department thought he was an anachronism then. Mind you, some of them were a bit radical themselves.

Anyone see Minford's paper at the weekend? The 1970s wants it's economist back. It was probably something re-hashed from an IEA speech back in the day.

I read it with interest, although, I think you should really credit the other 15 economists that contributed, as Matt Ridley in the Times did today:

...after Brexit, Britain should try unilateral free trade no matter what everybody else does — and even if the United States turns more protectionist. So argues a group of 16 distinguished economists, Economists for Free Trade, the first part of whose manifesto From Project Fear to Project Prosperity is published today. They calculate that unilateral free trade would benefit the British economy to the tune of £135 billion a year. One of them, Kevin Dowd of Durham University, has also written a powerful new pamphlet for the Institute of Economic Affairs entitled A trade policy for a Brexited Britain.He argues that unlike in every other kind of negotiation, unilateral disarmament works with trade. Dismantling barriers to imports — removing sanctions against your own people — reduces the costs of the goods for consumers, reduces the costs of inputs for most producers, lowers inflation, creates employment and boosts growth.

Still, some people prefer ad hominem arguments. It's far easier than actually reading...

So free trade is good and tariffs bad? Guess we'd better stay in the single market then.

I read it with interest, although, I think you should really credit the other 15 economists that contributed, as Matt Ridley in the Times did today:

 

 

Still, some people prefer ad hominem arguments. It's far easier than actually reading...

A real who's who there.

Nothing ad hominem - only that the assumptions and modelling choices underpinning these types of estimates have been throughly dismantled on here before. Criticisms range from wishing away the effects of distance on trade patterns, misunderstanding the role of standards and attributing all differences in producer prices to trade barriers (rather than also to differences in tastes and quality) through to ignoring the importance of services and FDI when estimating welfare costs from lower UK exports to the EU 
after Brexit.

Minford and fellow occultists forecasts are a throwback to the 1970s and early 1980s when you could wing it with a highly simplified theory, a bit of A-level maths and a ZX Spectrum. They basically represent everything that is micky mouse about economics as a wannabe hard science. They are not grounded in facts or data about how the world actually works which are the basis of modern trade models.

I wait with bated breath for their autumn paper. Perhaps you can fill us in on how they'd defend their assumptions as you're so heavily invested in the substance -and reject ad hominem attacks, except when its on those who are in burning tower blocks and look a bit different from you. Or maybe you only know how to cut and paste the bits of an article that are not behind a paywall

If so, suggest you go back to playing businessman or shedding a tear for Diana, little kipper.

So free trade is good and tariffs bad? Guess we'd better stay in the single market then.

Aren't there tariffs if you want to trade with the outside world? Or are they "good tariffs".

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A real who's who there.

 

Nothing ad hominem - only that the assumptions and modelling choices underpinning these types of estimates have been throughly dismantled on here before. Criticisms range from wishing away the effects of distance on trade patterns and misunderstanding the role of standards to ignoring the importance of services and FDI when estimating welfare costs from lower UK exports to the EU 
after Brexit.

 

Minford and fellow occultists forecasts are a throwback to the 1970s and early 1980s when you could wing it with a highly simplified theory, a bit of A-level maths and a ZX Spectrum. They basically represent everything that is micky mouse about economics as a wannabe hard science. They are not grounded in facts or data about how the world actually works which are the basis of modern trade models.

 

I wait with bated breath for their autumn paper. Perhaps you can fill us in on how they'd defend their assumptions as you're so heavily invested in the substance -and reject ad hominem attacks, except when its on those who are in burning tower blocks and look a bit different from you. Or maybe you only know how to cut and paste the bits of an article that are not behind a paywall

 

If so, suggest you go back to playing businessman or shedding a tear for Diana, little kipper.

Nutshell.

Nutshell.

You had to quote pal, didn't you? Well, as I have 5 minutes after spending my day playing businessman, maybe you should read Matt Ridley, in a paper I subscribe to. His point is related not to economics in general but protectionist trade models, that the EU and particularly France with regard to their farming economy and Germany, with regard to their corrupt car industry, exemplify. This part of his article follows on from a point I made earlier in this thread:

For the EU, the dominant approach has been harmonisation rather than mutual recognition: things must be done the same way everywhere within the single market. But outside, mutual recognition of outcomes is gaining ground: for example, between Australia and New Zealand, there is an agreement that “your agency judged this medicine or foodstuff safe, and that’s good enough for us”. Even the EU has accepted this approach of mutual recognition with other countries, although sparingly. This has to be the way to go. The World Trade Organisation does provide a mechanism for this kind of equivalent mutual recognition. In the “technical barriers to trade” (TBT) and “sanitary and phytosanitary measures” (SPS) agreements, countries should mutually recognise their systems if the overall objective (safety etc) is the same, but the technical way of getting there differs. So the EU could arguably be breaching WTO rules if it argues that equivalence requires identical regulation.

Those following me on this thread will remember this post of mine:

Sums up the EU ******, really.The United States would like to again note that a hazard-based approach raises significant questions with respect to the soundness of the EU’s approach, and raises questions under its international obligations as well. A hazard based approach relies on eschewing the complete information that may be available or discerned through a risk assessment. In this case, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has stated that it sees no technical reasons why a risk-based approach cannot be utilized to regulate EDs. The measure published by the Commission provides no reason to question or revisit EFSA’s point.

With respect to international obligations, the WTO SPS Agreement recognizes that WTO Members have the right to take measures to protect human, animal or plant life or health. But in order to ensure such measures are not a disguised restriction on trade, it also requires that such measures are “based on scientific principles and are not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence,” except where the relevant scientific evidence is insufficient. Consistent with that obligation, the SPS Agreement also requires that such measures “are based on an assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, of the risks to human, animal, or plant life or health” and that such assessments “take into account available scientific evidence…”

A hazard-based approach for establishing the criteria to identify and regulate endocrine disruptors would omit critical elements of the risk analysis process, such as dose-response assessment for potency and an exposure assessment, leading to regulatory decision-making on the basis of incomplete or insufficient scientific knowledge or context.

As far as "how the world actually works", your pal needs to wise up and remember the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. This applies to artificial tariffs distorting trade and £60 billion a month spent by the European Central Bank buying bonds to keep interest rates low and prop up bankrupt Eurozone countries and banks, so that the Eurozone has a semblance of economic growth. I can't wait until the chickens come home to roost for Draghi and the ECB. As Warren Buffett said, "Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked."

Finally, with regard to Grenfell, the resident trolls will note that my thread was started before the identity of the resident, whose fridge exploded, was known and Hotpoint have still not recalled the fridges already sold, being content apparently, with their safety. Still, play the race cards, guys as you are obviously bereft of a decent counterargument. I'll look forward to your profuse apologies, when the cause of the fire is published.

You stilly on here you fkin moron

Good to see someone's been quietly working on the nails for Brexit's coffin.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/26/keir-starmer-no-constructive-ambiguity-brexit-cliff-edge-labour-will-avoid-transitional-deal

Tick tock.

So exactly the same as the Conservatives then.... Weird.

So exactly the same as the Conservatives then.... Weird.

Pleasing to see a Brexiteer can't see the difference. All the better.

Good to see someone's been quietly working on the nails for Brexit's coffin.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/26/keir-starmer-no-constructive-ambiguity-brexit-cliff-edge-labour-will-avoid-transitional-deal

 

Tick tock.

Europe are united and not breaking ranks in the negotiations, while we have people putting cracks into our own position, for their own political agendas

is this from the Labour party who didn't make themselves clear what they wanted in the brexit campaign. A party that needs to get out of Europe at all costs so that they can renationalise, a nonsense that is so expensive and unlikely to improve anything.

Europe are united and not breaking ranks in the negotiations, while we have people putting cracks into our own position, for their own political agendas

How can you possibly "crack" a position that doesn't even exist?

Some write as if the monumental problem of negotiating our departure from the EU is akin to some kind of 'war effort' with Britain's people and government all united in a common purpose against a common enemy. That alas is very clearly not the case here is it? Indeed, half the nation - the younger and better educated half in the main - didn't in fact vote to leave the EU and they cannot just be ignored as if they have become irrelevant somehow. While the public seems to be split (more or less) 50/50 on the question, there seems little reason to doubt that both houses of parliament would vote overwhelmingly to remain in the EU were parliament alone given the responsibility of deciding the issue - which many might think they should be in a parliamentary democracy such as ours.

Even the 'them and us' style language I see employed now re our new relationship with the rest of Europe is a pretty good illustration of exactly why we joined the European community in the first place and also why our political class should never have risked placing this nation into the appalling lose/lose situation it now faces. Even if the Brexit negotiations go well then all we have to look forward to is that the coming damage to our society and economy is limited. If the negotiations continue as badly as they have started ... well the next decades may be a pretty grim time in this nation's long history.

So I ask myself how can what is a manifestly a DISUNITED nation be reasonably expected to present anything resembling a united face in the Brexit process?

why our political class should never have risked placing this nation into the appalling lose/lose situation it now faces.

When you say 'political class' don't you mean the conservatives?

The Tories called the refurendum, the vast majority of MPs on the leave side were Tories, now it's being implemented by the Tories. If it wrecks the economy it's going to do the same for their reputation as the party you can trust with it.

... the younger and better educated half ...

... would put Corbyn in power!

Just because you're 'better' educated, does not meant that you are not clueless or, at best, naive

The Times bang on the money, as usual, here:

The EU has made quite a few mistakes on a grand scale in the last quarter of a century, but one of the worst involved giving its top job to an obscure politician from Luxembourg three years ago.

The appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker as president of the European Commission in 2014 has turned out to be even more of a failure than his pro-EU critics feared and British eurosceptics hoped. On his watch the UK, the second-largest contributor to EU funds, failed to get decent enough terms to persuade it to stay, following which its electorate opted to leave.

Yet Juncker is the preposterous figure who, rather than resigning over his historic mismanagement, this week imperiously marked Britain’s position papers on Brexit as deserving of an “F” grade. There is a potential response that the British government could offer, also beginning with “F”, but as the Brexit talks resume in Brussels it might be thought unhelpful to the potentially productive outcome that Juncker’s intransigence imperils.

“Juncker is very emotional, it depends what time of day you get him,” says a key figure on the British side. “[Martin] Selmayr [Juncker’s eurofanatical head of cabinet] gives him the Brexit papers at night and nothing substantial comes back. We think he wants to pretend Brexit isn’t really happening.”

Juncker’s original appointment demonstrated what is wrong with the EU. Remember that it came at a pivotal moment, with the impoverishment of southern Europe to the advantage of the north thanks to the single currency. On top of which the abject failure to protect the southern external border has fuelled continuing suffering and upheaval.

What was needed at the European Commission, the central Brussels institution that drives legislation, regulation and enforcement of the rules, was skilful leadership and fresh thinking. What it did not need at the helm was Juncker, an intransigent and fanatical federalist with all the diplomatic skills of a bumptious barman calling time at a beer festival.

The Times bang on the money, as usual, here:

You really struggle with how journalism works, don't you.

It's an opinion piece, written by a Brexiteer columnist, in a newspaper that urged its readers to vote remain. Try the news sections (clue: generally at the front of the paper) for the dawning reality of Brexit's sinking fortunes.

By the way, Juncker has long been a target (TM BoJo), so this piece is really not very original. But it still seems to be so surprising to Brexit jihadists that the European Commission would act to protect the interests of its member states. How dare they.

When you say 'political class' don't you mean the conservatives?

 

 

The Tories called the refurendum, the vast majority of MPs on the leave side were Tories, now it's being implemented by the Tories. If it wrecks the economy it's going to do the same for their reputation as the party you can trust with it.

As the Guardian say

Before the referendum it would have been reasonable to say that the British already had their cake and were eating it, through membership of the single market combined with our various opt outs and rebates. No deal that might be reached now will ever be as good. That’s*obvious to outsiders, and axiomatic to*the EU negotiating team. The only question is*how long it will take for the Conservatives to accept this truth.

As the Guardian say

Before the referendum it would have been reasonable to say that the British already had their cake and were eating it, through membership of the single market combined with our various opt outs and rebates. No deal that might be reached now will ever be as good. That’s*obvious to outsiders, and axiomatic to*the EU negotiating team. The only question is*how long it will take for the Conservatives to accept this truth.

very balanced then

very balanced then

 

I think they are stating the bleedin obvious but the Govt has no sense of reality what do you think ?

The latest negotiations seem to have gone the same way as all the others so far. Tory bloke comes out saying how well it went and progress is being made, EU bloke comes out saying nothing has been sorted and we're not moving forward.

Not a chance in hell of a deal being done, looks to me like the EU are offing nothing and the Tories are in a flap trying to figure out how to make WTO rules work.

The latest negotiations seem to have gone the same way as all the others so far. Tory bloke comes out saying how well it went and progress is being made, EU bloke comes out saying nothing has been sorted and we're not moving forward.

 

Not a chance in hell of a deal being done, looks to me like the EU are offing nothing and the Tories are in a flap trying to figure out how to make WTO rules work.

Couple of pints, cheerful wave, big grin, breezy walk, purposeful handshake, a choice one liner, big grin, cheerful wave, couple more pints.

Rinse and repeat, David 'Davo' Davis-style.

Couple of pints, cheerful wave, big grin, breezy walk, purposeful handshake, a choice one liner, big grin, cheerful wave, couple more pints.

 

Rinse and repeat, David 'Davo' Davis-style.

 

You don't often see seven massive tits in the same photo.

As the Guardian say

 

Before the referendum it would have been reasonable to say that the British already had their cake and were eating it, through membership of the single market combined with our various opt outs and rebates. No deal that might be reached now will ever be as good. That’s*obvious to outsiders, and axiomatic to*the EU negotiating team. The only question is*how long it will take for the Conservatives to accept this truth.

That's a limited context for "as good". It ignores sovereignty and immigration. Like it or not, those are reasons why a lot of people voted "out".

Rather than constantly trumpeting the virtues of "ever increasing union", the remain campaign should have tackled immigration and sovereignty head on and explained why a leave vote wouldn't deliver the Olde England that those voters wistfully / retardedly imagine.

You don't often see seven massive tits in the same photo.

There's only two DDs in that picture.

The two on the left is an imposter.

There's only two DDs in that picture.

More of a Ben Bradshaw.

The EU27 have said that they will not start taking about trade until "sufficient progress" has been made.

Hence the EU 'negotiating team' constantly saying "sufficient progress" has not been made. Even though things like continuation of the EHIC were agreed upon in the last week.

The EU27 have said that they will not start taking about trade until "sufficient progress" has been made.

 

Hence the EU 'negotiating team' constantly saying "sufficient progress" has not been made. Even though things like continuation of the EHIC were agreed upon in the last week.

Nolan, even you, pal, must know what the EU means - they principally mean the exit bill. The EU have been clear from one day that needs to be resolved -or specifically 'sufficient progress' be made before talk of trade can begin.

No moving of goalposts then except in your head.