BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 19 - 07:22 PM

The 39 billion is not reparation. It is a sum that we have agreed with the EU we should pay in order to honour our commitments to the project. I'd remind you that a vital element of that project, agreed by all 28 members, is that richer countries should make bigger contributions in order that every EU country can remain solvent and make progress with infrastructure. There are obligations on net recipients to use the money in particular ways in line with EU policy. This has, in spite of many a glitch, helped to maintain a relatively prosperous and peaceful EU, which benefits every one of its members. Whatever kind of brexit we have to endure, one thing's for sure: we will continue to trade with the EU. If we want to build a friendly and cooperative trading environment post-brexit it is incumbent on this country to honour the already-agreed financial settlement. In the long term that will prove to have been a very good investment for future cordial relations, a small price to pay. Bejaysus, we will need all the help we can get. A petulant and shameful refusal to pay the bill is the last thing we should be contemplating.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Jun 19 - 04:38 PM

Iains, with regard to my post of yesterday do you have an answer?

"Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?"

"So perhaps you could tell us if we are going to leave on the 31st October, before that date, after that date, with a deal, without a deal. What reparations, if any, will we pay to the EU, What are we going to do with European citizens residing in the UK, what will our relationship with Europe regarding Security be, what are we going to do regarding fishing, farming, banking, insurance and a multitude of other issues."

Yes, no, maybe ?????

Do you have an answer for us Iains ..............

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Jun 19 - 01:47 PM

Doesn't look as if it going to matter too much what the UK want.

UK heading for no-deal Brexit on 31 October, EU leaders conclude


"There’s very much a strong view across the EU that there shouldn’t be any more extensions," Varadkar said on Thursday. "While I have endless patience, some of my colleagues have lost patience, quite frankly, with the UK and there’s enormous hostility to any further extension.

"So I think an extension could really only happen if it were to facilitate something like a general election in the UK or perhaps even something like a second referendum if they decided to have one," the Irish premier continued. "What won’t be entertained is an extension for further negotiations or further indicative votes. The time for that has long since passed."



No doubt if we hit trouble after leaving it will all be due to the EU being vindictive...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Stanron
Date: 20 Jun 19 - 07:26 PM

The Donald says "Keep America great". Tom Watson says "Keep Britain subservient". With whom do you agree?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Jun 19 - 08:05 PM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 18 Jun 19 - 07:22 PM

The 39 billion is not reparation. It is a sum that we have agreed with the EU we should pay in order to honour our commitments to the project. I'd remind you that a vital element of that project, agreed by all 28 members, is that richer countries should make bigger contributions in order that every EU country can remain solvent and make progress with infrastructure. There are obligations on net recipients to use the money in particular ways in line with EU policy. This has, in spite of many a glitch, helped to maintain a relatively prosperous and peaceful EU, which benefits every one of its members.

I seem to remember that Steve Shaw was previously in favour of settling for the 100 billion euro figure that the EU had plucked out of thin air. This reduced figure of £39 billion was a figure accepted in order that discussions could continue with regard to the UK leaving the EU.
It was always a case, in line with EU rules, that the figure would be part of the overall agreement on us leaving the EU. As we have not come to any further agreement, the £39 billion is still available as a negotiating point.


Although the £39bn appears to have been agreed, the EU rules say that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

I'm sorry to have to repeat this, but for some it seems to be overlooked whenever it suits their purposes.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jun 19 - 09:21 PM

Quote me on that 100 billion claim, please. In full.

The 39 billion is hardly a bargaining chip. It's what we are obliged to pay under the current arrangement we have with the EU. We will pay that sum if we leave. To not pay would result in our biggest and most vital trading partner becoming resentful and uncooperative. As we have yet to achieve any substantial trade deal with anyone else of real significance, I'd suggest that not paying would be suicidal. Won't happen, Nigel.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jun 19 - 06:57 AM

I have just thought of a potential positive outcome if we leave. Maybe, just maybe, the Tory party will be wiped out along with BoJo the clown.

We can but hope...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Jun 19 - 12:45 PM

Still no answer to my question of the 19th I see.

Come on Iains, what are you waiting for.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Jun 19 - 02:44 AM

Interesting quotation here:


The Irish prime minister, Leo Varadkar, said he hoped for an "early meeting" with the new incumbent in Downing Street, who is due to be chosen by the Tory membership in the last week of July. He said: "I am conscious of the fact that notwithstanding their support for Brexit, their strong support of Brexit, both of the two people that are now going forward to the members of the British Conservative party actually voted for the withdrawal agreement and they did so only a few weeks ago, and I think that is something worth bearing in mind."


Whatever Boris Johnson said to the ERG, if we judge people on their actions, it is quite possible he brings back the Withdrawal Agreement once more.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Jun 19 - 04:51 AM

I'm a bit undecided whether this should be on the Tory Leadership thread or here, but I had to make a choice.

There is a fair bit in the press about Boris possibly losing a no confidence vote if he presses for no deal. The basis for these claims seem to be that some Tory MPs have said they would vote for a no confidence motion.

But that leave Kate Hoey and a few others out of the equation. I am not at all convinced she would vote no-confidence, and the more it is about no deal rather than the tory party, the less likely she is to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 19 - 07:46 AM

The way things are going, it might not be Boris in any case. I think he's about to find out that a month is a long time in politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 24 Jun 19 - 12:22 PM

Aaron Banks is suing Carole Cadwalladr for defamation on two grounds; she claimed in a speech two weeks ago that “We know the Russian Government offered money to Arron Banks.” Secondly, in the Ted Talk she said “And I’m not even going to go into the lies that Arron Banks has told about his covert relationship with the Russian Government.”

Banks says he took no money and he has no covert relationship. Now he is going to sue her to prove it or pay up…

Further spiffing news the Brexit party have today announced that they are to legally challenge the result of the Peterborough by-election.    I would suggest they have some convincing data to contemplate such a step.

There are rumours Mr Banks will donate his winnings to the brexit party. She may end up the largest donor to the Brexit Party. How sweet is that!

It seems Ms codwallop must put her money where her mouth is.

Actions do have consequences!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Jun 19 - 01:32 PM

Chickens, hatching, counting.

I am sure Nigel will be along to point you say she claimed the Russians offered money whereas he is claiming he took none. Those are not incompatible, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 25 Jun 19 - 03:59 AM

About time a Guardian/Observer hack was taken to task for spreading false news. Interesting that she claims she is being bullied when a victim resorts to the courts to clear his name.
On the Ted Talk she said “And I’m not even going to go into the lies that Arron Banks has told about his covert relationship with the Russian Government.”
I suspect the court will insist she goes into it and reveals all, chapter and verse, in excruciating detail. Otherwise it could cost.

I think she is upset that she is singled out, not the newspaper,or the program. But in both cases she is sole author so no one else to share the blame.
The bar was recently raised for defamation and the number of cases has declined. However Another reason for the decline – on social media in particular – is that a handful of high-profile lawsuits have acted as a deterrent.

Katie Hopkins was ordered to pay £24,000 in damages to Jack Monroe in 2017 after defaming the food blogger on Twitter.

In 2013, Lord McAlpine won a libel claim against Sally Bercow, wife of House of Commons Speaker John, over her tweet following a Newsnight report wrongly implicating the Tory peer in allegations of child sex abuse.

Nicola Cain, co-author of Defamation: Law, Procedure and Practice, which is published by Thomson Reuters, said: “The message is finally starting to get through to users that they need to be extremely careful what they say when posting online.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Jun 19 - 07:03 AM

Any answer to my question of the 19th Iains ............. ????

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Jun 19 - 12:45 PM

So Southern Water has been fined a record £126m for serious breaches of the environmental standards.

What has that to do with Brexit, I hear you ask? Well, the standards are set by the EU. No doubt we could, and probably will, carry them over after Brexit, if only because we don't have time to rethink them. But any time from then on, they could be lowered under pressure from the water companies. After all, "taking back control" means choosing the balance between business interests and customer interests, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 19 - 10:23 AM

Just to leaven the dough a little, the Guardian, referring to Liam Fox, reportedly started a sentence in a report with "Fox, a Hunt supporter..."

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 26 Jun 19 - 04:22 PM

Latest You Gov survey of voting intent should there be a General Election.

The Conservative Party is tied with the Brexit Party inthe latest YouGov/Times Westminster voting intention survey, on 22% of the vote. Last week’s poll saw the Brexit Party in the lead with 23% and the Conservatives on a par with Labour at 20%.

Labour follows the Conservatives and the Brexit Party on 20%. The Liberal Democrats have dropped 2 percentage points since last week, from 21% last week to 19%.

Elsewhere, the Green party are on 10% (from 9%).

The outcome would be anybody's guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Jun 19 - 04:27 PM

Any answer to my question of the 19th Iains ............. ????

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 26 Jun 19 - 05:30 PM

Any answer to my question of the 19th Iains ............. ????

I Assume you mean more project fear by a guardian hack Jon Henley.An EU correspondent based in Paris.(below)

1.UK growth tipped to slow as firms run down stockpiles
2.Divided, pessimistic, angry: survey reveals bleak mood of pre-Brexit UK
3.UK businesses urged to step up preparations for no-deal Brexit
4.Varadkar: removing Irish backstop would be as bad as no-deal Brexit
5.No deal is “extremely serious” for Northern Ireland, warns Tory MP
6.Brexit “shambles” has ruined UK’s reputation, says senior diplomat
7.Food Standards Agency struggling to prepare for Brexit, say auditors
8.Third of Britons say they avoid news out of Brexit frustration
UK jobs growth slows amid Brexit uncertainty
9. UK job growth slows amid Brexit uncertainty

Wild unsubstantiated allegations and opinions.The only point with a grounding in reality is Number 4 but that is applicable to the Irish Republic, not the north, and it is Varadkar saying it. The economy may shrink up to 8% and the State risks a return to dramatic public expenditure cuts and possibly 50000 more unemployed
and the south will have to police the border. Ireland has been played for a sucker by the EU and now reality is sinking in. Varakar has stirred the pot for months and the resultant mess of pottage is now giving his electorate severe indigestion. I doubt he will be re elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 19 - 01:41 AM

As some seem incapable of finding it themselves, here is the oft repeated question from Raggytash

So perhaps you could tell us if we are going to leave on the 31st October, before that date, after that date, with a deal, without a deal. What reparations, if any, will we pay to the EU, What are we going to do with European citizens residing in the UK, what will our relationship with Europe regarding Security be, what are we going to do regarding fishing, farming, banking, insurance and a multitude of other issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Jun 19 - 05:14 AM

Nice try Iains but my questions reiterated on the 19th came after you said the Labor party had no policy on Europe.

"So perhaps you could tell us if we are going to leave on the 31st October, before that date, after that date, with a deal, without a deal. What reparations, if any, will we pay to the EU, What are we going to do with European citizens residing in the UK, what will our relationship with Europe regarding Security be, what are we going to do regarding fishing, farming, banking, insurance and a multitude of other issues."

As I also asked then "Any coherent, cohesive and consistent Conservative Brexit policy yet"

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 27 Jun 19 - 05:48 AM

I have stated before:
Reparations will not be paid(Reparation. The compensation for war damage paid by a defeated state.)
I have also stated before I do not believe in scrying, divination or cleromancy. Perhaps I need to use chlorine washed chicken bones to make it work.

Compared to Labour, even you must admit, the official Conservative Brexit policy is a masterpiece of crystal clear lucidity!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Jun 19 - 06:00 AM

Raggy, are you aware of Albert Einstein’s spot-on definition of ‘insanity’? Applies perfectly here. He hasn’t a single clue, and hasn't the cojones to confess it, so he constantly resorts to deflection. It’s what R-WEs do.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Jun 19 - 06:11 AM

"Compared to Labour, even you must admit, the official Conservative Brexit policy is a masterpiece of crystal clear lucidity!"

I might agree if you would tell us just what is the official Conservative Brexit policy, but as yet you have failed to do so.

"What reparations, if any, will we pay to the EU, What are we going to do with European citizens residing in the UK, what will our relationship with Europe regarding Security be, what are we going to do regarding fishing, farming, banking, insurance and a multitude of other issues."

You state that "Reparations will not be paid" is that official Conservative party policy?

Back to you. Please answer the questions this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 27 Jun 19 - 07:07 AM

Nobody is suggesting paying reparations. They are suggesting paying off debts which have been incurred on programmes which the UK signed up to.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Jun 19 - 08:00 AM

I'm feeling in a generous mood so I thought I'd give Iains a little help to answer my questions. So here you go Iains.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/27/brexit-fantasy-boris-johnson-jeremy-hunt

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 19 - 08:12 AM

Femi Oluwole in the Times today. Grateful thanks to "Our Future, Our Choice" for making it public on Facebook.

You know that kid who lied about doing their homework, then instead of apologising, tells the teacher that they never officially set the homework, and that not doing one’s homework is itself educational and looks great on a CV? That’s the kid who grows up to reassure millions of people they can vote to leave the EU without any financial consequences because we hold all the cards and would get a great deal. That’s the kid who, when the negotiations become an international humiliation, tells those same people they voted to leave the EU without a deal. That’s the kid who tells people he can renegotiate a new deal in a few weeks when the first one took two years and after the other side’s negotiators have shut up shop. That’s the kid who never really grew up.

In a Talkradio interview, Boris Johnson set out his prospective Brexit plans. Two of the three are for a no-deal scenario - which is interesting because, in June 2017, he said, “There is no plan for No Deal, because we’re going to get a great deal.” Here they are.

Plan A:

Pass the “best bits” of the Withdrawal Agreement through parliament, then “suspend” the commitment to pay the £39 billion, and then sort out the Irish border in the transition period after we’ve already left.

Even if Parliament agreed to pass a half-agreement, the EU 27 have already said that without the backstop there is no agreement and that it won’t be re-opened. So Boris Johnson’s Brexit plan amounts to little more than flying to Brussels and shouting at the EU Commission’s locked doors really loudly.

The backstop is there to ensure that there is always a system in place to avoid the need for checks on the Irish border. Without that safety lock, if one side pulled out, it could open the door to Ireland’s dark past. The fact that we’re prepared to remove that safety lock at all will make the EU even less willing to change it.

Plan B:

Use GATT 24 to produce a ‘standstill’, meaning the trading arrangements with the EU stay the same whilst we negotiate a new deal.

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is a piece of WTO law which allows an exception to the rule that you must apply the same tariffs to everyone you don’t have a trade deal with. The exception is in the case of “an interim agreement necessary for the formation of a customs union or of a free trade area.” That is exactly what our Withdrawal Agreement is. And, at any rate, such an agreement wouldn’t even be deemed “necessary” by the WTO.

So Boris Johnson is basically saying “We don’t need the agreement we’ve just spent two years negotiating, and which the EU has said won’t be changed. Let’s leave with “no deal” and it’ll be fine because I’ll get us a new one in the next few weeks.” Even if he got these magical standstill arrangements, a lot of the trade benefits of the EU come from having the same regulations, so he’d be signing us up to be bound by EU rules for up to 10 years, but without any representation in Brussels anymore. #TakeBackControl

Plan C: No Deal.

Parliament has already voted strongly against No Deal several times. No Deal was much less popular in Parliament than a new referendum. So Parliament won’t allow it. 54% of voters in 2017 voted for Parties who said they would reject a No-Deal Brexit, so Parliament couldn’t deliver No Deal without defying the people who elected it.

Boris Johnson often says we can leave without a deal and then be in a stronger negotiating position. If we haven’t paid the £39 billion settlement, much of which we legally committed ourselves to as EU members, then that’s the first thing the EU27 will demand. Also, if we leave without a deal, trade with those 27 countries gets more expensive due to tariffs and regulatory differences. For the EU, trade will only get more expensive with one country. If we’re too weak now, what do you think will happen when we’re the only economy in the world with no trade deals with its geographic neighbours? Who’ll be more desperate?

The only way out of this mess is a referendum between a solid deal and EU membership. But Johnson keeps ducking scrutiny (which, by the way, is why OFOC is putting 2000 rubber ducks outside his campaign office on Thursday). To be fair, this mystery man would make an amazingly consistent prime minister: three whole Brexit plans and each one is doomed to be an international failure… Goddamn, that’s impressive.

It would be funny if it wasn't so catastrophic!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Jun 19 - 02:04 PM

But the tiny cabal of immensely-wealthy tax-avoiders, some of whom own/control the rabidly pro-Brexit media, and who are controlling the entire debacle from the shadows, will be very happy indeed...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 27 Jun 19 - 02:25 PM

As things stand we leave at the end of Oct. This is the saint day of St. Wolfgang bishop and Reformer How apposite is that. By that date we will either have a deal or not. The Brussels goblins will have to start proper negotiations.
According to some sources leaving with no deal will lose the EU one million jobs and cost £228billion if Britain rejects deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 19 - 02:35 PM

Jackanory, Jackanory, Jackanory...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Jun 19 - 02:40 PM

I'll tell you another
About his brother...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Jun 19 - 04:31 PM

Ooooh Iains, you're still avoiding my question :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 29 Jun 19 - 02:22 PM

No point in answering your question. My responses seem to be automatically deleted. I guess the truth hurts.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/06/26/voting-intention-brex-22-con-22-lab-20-lib-dem-19-

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jun 19 - 02:19 AM

As one who thinks we should have remained, and as a poor second to keep as closely aligned the the EU as possible, I don't think it is up to me to point out some possible benefits of Brexit. But since no-one else is, here are a couple that could come about. I am not saying they will, but they could.

(a) All pro-Brexiteers talk about getting trade deals far and wide, and all remainers talk about the importance to EU trade. In terms of environmental considerations, there is something to be said for having less international trade - less aviation pollution, for example.and less waste- the fast fashion may be hard hit, but wearing a tee shirt more often is not inherently a bad thing. Of course, even a 40% rise in costs moves a £10 item to £14, so it is quite possible this just continues. For some time I have been thinking about protectionism as a mechanism for protecting the environment rather than primarily jobs, and it could have a role to play, I feel.

(b) IA while ago I was talking to a local cheese maker who is very small scale - perhapa a hundred chees sales a month.They cheeses are Camembert-Brie style, and mainly sold to the middle classes because of the high cost, relative to supermarket equivalents. He was very happy with the idea that French cheese was more expensive due to tariffs as it opened opportunities for him. He was considering expanding if the market looked right.

(c). In a similar vein, while UK companies that trade internationally may be hard hit, those who trade solely in the UK could do well because of high tariff and waste-avoidance pressures. Of course, should the tariffs be low, or zero, the opposite applies.

Naturally, these local companies rely on having customers with money, so if there are high tariffs there could be a gradual loss if the people employed by international companies lose jobs and then because of their having less to spend the local traders lose customers .. a trickle down effect which may actually happen. Numerically are vastly more such local traders than international companies, though of course they tend to empty very few if any staff, whereas the international companies often employ thousands.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jun 19 - 02:23 AM

... tend to employ ....

That post was inspired by the thread 'Understanding you political opponents', which unfortunately seems to be everyone defending their own PoV. I thought it was raising some points my opponents might raise that are not simply straw men.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 30 Jun 19 - 03:57 AM

(b) and (c) are definitely not advantages for the consumer. Higher prices for continental produce, and higher prices for UK produce because producers see "opportunities". Inflationary pressures, and a hit on the hard pressed UK consumer. Lots of people talk about trade solely in terms of benefits to the producer, as if a consumer is just a resource there to be milked.

As for me, I will continue to buy French cheese and German and Italian meat products, even if the prices are higher. I will fund this by buying less British stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Raggytash
Date: 30 Jun 19 - 04:00 AM

Complete and utter cop out Iains, you do not have the answer, you have never been able to answer any of the points put to you re Brexit, ever. Now you are trying to pass the blame onto the Moderators.

The act of a scoundrel. Shameless.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jun 19 - 04:25 AM

I agree that we often tend to leave consumers out of the calculation, Dave C. And I am hardly pro-Brexit. But if you consider the situation that a high tariff is in place, so we have that negative impact on the consumer already, then my cheese maker is making things cheaper for the consumer, compared to the alternative.

What I wanted to bring out, though, is that many remainers talk as the only beneficiaries are those trading with off shore accounts. It is possible for very much smaller businesses to benefit.


Anyway, that is enough from me about advantages to Brexit. I will return to the positions I regard as tenable: remain or very close alignment with the EU.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Jun 19 - 04:32 AM

”Lots of people talk about trade solely in terms of benefits to the producer, as if a consumer is just a resource there to be milked.”

Bingo! The principle of ‘The Upward Flow of Wealth’ - the opposite of the myth of ‘The Trickle-Down Effect’ - on which Conservatism is based.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Jun 19 - 04:52 AM

That should have been “one of the founding principles on which Conservatism is based”.

AKA the ‘Robin Hood in Reverse’ principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 30 Jun 19 - 06:30 AM

Trump is one who fails to understand the point of trade, talking about "trade deficits". There is no such thing as a trade deficit, trade is always a two way process. And if money flows one way, lots of nice shiny goods flow the other. Western consumers benefit greatly from trade with China, painted as a deficit by Trump and other western politicians. We get lots of nice shiny products, and all we have to give them is money, which we have, and if we don't we can create.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Stanron
Date: 30 Jun 19 - 06:54 AM

In trade the 'deficit' is the difference between how much you buy and how much you sell. You do not make a profit when you buy. You might buy with a profit potential but you can only make a profit when you sell.

The EU sells more to the UK than the UK sells to the EU. If trade fails between us, not that anyone wants that to happen, but if it fails the EU will lose more profit than the UK. You might try some sleight of hand with proportional statistics to make it look less but you would only be fooling yourself.

Also there are at least two types of buying. If you buy to consume there is no profit and no profit potential. If you buy to manufacture, develop or invest you have a potential profit, but that might be seen as a lesser potential profit than if you keep your money in your pocket and wait for a better chance.

Between countries there is always a possibility of trade deficit.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jun 19 - 07:55 AM

It's not just profit and loss in business though, Stanron. The balance sheet showing your assets and liabilities is just as important. If you buy something it may be a consumable or it may be capital expenditure, in which case your assets increase. Trading "deficits" are also affected by this.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jun 19 - 07:57 AM

David C is right. No one trades to lose money, they trade to get the shiny new things. Any form of trade analysis that leaves the shiny things out of the comparison is at best misleading, or potentially worse than useless.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 30 Jun 19 - 10:31 AM

"The EU sells more to the UK than the UK sells to the EU."


Which goes to show that the UK relies far more on the EU for the goods it needs, than the EU relies on the UK. That stuff they sell includes a large fraction of our food.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Jun 19 - 11:44 AM

“Awkward things, facts!”, as our RR-WE is so fond of telling us.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Stanron
Date: 30 Jun 19 - 12:10 PM

We buy food from the EU because, in part, The EU puts tariffs on non EU food. IF we were no longer bound by EU rules, non EU food would be cheaper. The price of French, Italian, German and Spanish food is kept artificially high because they can't compete on a worldwide stage.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 30 Jun 19 - 12:17 PM

We buy food from the EU because of its quality.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
From: Iains
Date: 30 Jun 19 - 01:10 PM

At the moment, the UK imports about 30% of its food from the EU and another 10% from the rest of the world. How that equation may change after Brexit will be anybodies guess. The EU will still want the trade but will we?
The single market shows amazing disparities from country to country when it comes to food prices, Ireland is the fourth most expensive country in the EU for Food, costing 20% more than the EU average.
The UK by contrast ranks about 18th, similar to Slovakia, Croatia and Estonia.(I find this ranking surprising but the source is Eurostat)
I also find it surprising the prices in Ireland are so high. With the CAP it would be expected prices would even out over time. This is obviously not the case.
Of the 10.3 million farms in the EU, two thirds are less than 5ha in size, by contrast in the UK av farm size is 57ha. Agricultural land in the UK ranks 4th in the EU by area.
Bigger and more efficient farms produce more food per Ha. I suspect food provision after brexit is a non issue. The EU and CAP both need serious reform. In the UK we need to decide if farmers are to remain farmers or morph into grant aided landscape custodians(like many Irish sheep farmers)