UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Carth

I was talking about Scotland, not sure what else (if anything) they've got to smooth a possible introduction into the EU gang . . . . Irn-Bru?

The old Irn Bru maybe. The post sugar tax one though... just isn't the same.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

On a more serious note,what divides us is your priority for the economy and mine for sovereignty combined with the belief that the UK can forge its wn path. Whenever the break, the challenge is the same so an extension serves no ultimate purpose. Memebership of NATO, United Nations, WTO etc all impege on UK sovereignty.

If the EU can just agree to the Canada type deal, we can all get on with it. The fact they're not agreeing is the proof of their "I'm bigger than you" bullying method. Or to put it in Barnier's words "The UK must be realistic".

When the UK has exerted the most power politically, it has been as part of a coalition or alliance. In these alliances, compromises are made but the end justifies the means and overall, greater power is gained. Membership of the UN, NATO etc all reduce the UK's sovereignty but the end is seen to justify the means.

If a country like the UK is going to have any power economically then against a backdrop of China and the USA, it needs to be part of a larger trading bloc. No country apart from North Korea trades on WTO trade terms and so is not an option. Accepting a level playing field is not an onerous condition to me as we do not have high state intervention in industry and we have a high minimum wage. Canada is thousands of miles away so of course is not such a competitive threat as the UK is. Distance does matter in trade, as has oft been noted on this thread.

This is a small price to pay for the long-term drop in the wealth of the country no deal or a bad deal brings - wealth that could be put to good use - our nursing homes are crying out for more money, local councils' services in many parts of the country have been severely cut back since the Global Financial Crisis, a big question mark hangs over UK high streets and we are entering a big economic downturn that should not be worsened.

The EU replaced the Commonwealth as the UK's main trading partner and like the Commonwealth, the larger market helped create wealth. The difference with the EU was that it was a more competitive market. The UK could no longer force compliant nations to take ships full of Austin Allegros with square steering wheels made by people on strike every month. It had to raise its game and productivity and finally compete with its peers. It has stepped up to this challenge and many British services, products and companies are now once again world class.

There is no pipeline of deals that will replace the EU and the deals it has brought us. If such deals existed, the EU would have signed them already. And the basic rule of trade is that most trade is done with your neighbouring countries.

It's unrealistic to blame a larger organisation for having more negotiating clout than a smaller one. I think if you read the threads from 2016, there are warnings a plenty on this. I believe we even suggested that the Government would be rushing to blame the EU for not giving them what they promised the British electorate, although this was unlikely as the German car companies would force the EU to concede to our demands! Instead, you need to put this to those who knowingly or unknowingly mislead the country when they said "easiest trade deal ever."

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

When the UK has exerted the most power politically, it has been as part of a coalition or alliance. In these alliances, compromises are made but the end justifies the means and overall, greater power is gained. Membership of the UN, NATO etc all reduce the UK's sovereignty but the end is seen to justify the means.

If a country like the UK is going to have any power economically then against a backdrop of China and the USA, it needs to be part of a larger trading bloc. No country apart from North Korea trades on WTO trade terms and so is not an option. Accepting a level playing field is not an onerous condition to me as we do not have high state intervention in industry and we have a high minimum wage. Canada is thousands of miles away so of course is not such a competitive threat as the UK is. Distance does matter in trade, as has oft been noted on this thread.

This is a small price to pay for the long-term drop in the wealth of the country no deal or a bad deal brings - wealth that could be put to good use - our nursing homes are crying out for more money, local councils' services in many parts of the country have been severely cut back since the Global Financial Crisis, a big question mark hangs over UK high streets and we are entering a big economic downturn that should not be worsened.

The EU replaced the Commonwealth as the UK's main trading partner and like the Commonwealth, the larger market helped create wealth. The difference with the EU was that it was a more competitive market. The UK could no longer force compliant nations to take ships full of Austin Allegros with square steering wheels made by people on strike every month. It had to raise its game and productivity and finally compete with its peers. It has stepped up to this challenge and many British services, products and companies are now once again world class.

There is no pipeline of deals that will replace the EU and the deals it has brought us. If such deals existed, the EU would have signed them already. And the basic rule of trade is that most trade is done with your neighbouring countries.

It's unrealistic to blame a larger organisation for having more negotiating clout than a smaller one. I think if you read the threads from 2016, there are warnings a plenty on this. I believe we even suggested that the Government would be rushing to blame the EU for not giving them what they promised the British electorate, although this was unlikely as the German car companies would force the EU to concede to our demands! Instead, you need to put this to those who knowingly or unknowingly mislead the country when they said "easiest trade deal ever."

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

On a more serious note,what divides us is your priority for the economy and mine for sovereignty combined with the belief that the UK can forge its wn path. Whenever the break, the challenge is the same so an extension serves no ultimate purpose. Memebership of NATO, United Nations, WTO etc all impege on UK sovereignty.

If the EU can just agree to the Canada type deal, we can all get on with it. The fact they're not agreeing is the proof of their "I'm bigger than you" bullying method. Or to put it in Barnier's words "The UK must be realistic".

The piece in red above is text not written by me. I have been misquoted.

I can respond to your other points once that has been cleared up.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

When the UK has exerted the most power politically, it has been as part of a coalition or alliance. In these alliances, compromises are made but the end justifies the means and overall, greater power is gained. Membership of the UN, NATO etc all reduce the UK's sovereignty but the end is seen to justify the means.

If a country like the UK is going to have any power economically then against a backdrop of China and the USA, it needs to be part of a larger trading bloc. No country apart from North Korea trades on WTO trade terms and so is not an option. Accepting a level playing field is not an onerous condition to me as we do not have high state intervention in industry and we have a high minimum wage. Canada is thousands of miles away so of course is not such a competitive threat as the UK is. Distance does matter in trade, as has oft been noted on this thread.

This is a small price to pay for the long-term drop in the wealth of the country no deal or a bad deal brings - wealth that could be put to good use - our nursing homes are crying out for more money, local councils' services in many parts of the country have been severely cut back since the Global Financial Crisis, a big question mark hangs over UK high streets and we are entering a big economic downturn that should not be worsened.

The EU replaced the Commonwealth as the UK's main trading partner and like the Commonwealth, the larger market helped create wealth. The difference with the EU was that it was a more competitive market. The UK could no longer force compliant nations to take ships full of Austin Allegros with square steering wheels made by people on strike every month. It had to raise its game and productivity and finally compete with its peers. It has stepped up to this challenge and many British services, products and companies are now once again world class.

There is no pipeline of deals that will replace the EU and the deals it has brought us. If such deals existed, the EU would have signed them already. And the basic rule of trade is that most trade is done with your neighbouring countries.

It's unrealistic to blame a larger organisation for having more negotiating clout than a smaller one. I think if you read the threads from 2016, there are warnings a plenty on this. I believe we even suggested that the Government would be rushing to blame the EU for not giving them what they promised the British electorate, although this was unlikely as the German car companies would force the EU to concede to our demands! Instead, you need to put this to those who knowingly or unknowingly mislead the country when they said "easiest trade deal ever."

Nursing homes* and Local Council' Services are the same thing, and, along with UK high streets, have been feeling the pinch long before we 'left' the EU.

I remember reading a few months ago that even the Germans were putting the boot (no pun intended) into their own car companies.

I see once again you're concerned about the 'British services' being hit . . . job on the line mate?



*unless you mean private nursing homes are badly run

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

When the UK has exerted the most power politically, it has been as part of a coalition or alliance. In these alliances, compromises are made but the end justifies the means and overall, greater power is gained. Membership of the UN, NATO etc all reduce the UK's sovereignty but the end is seen to justify the means.

If a country like the UK is going to have any power economically then against a backdrop of China and the USA, it needs to be part of a larger trading bloc. No country apart from North Korea trades on WTO trade terms and so is not an option. Accepting a level playing field is not an onerous condition to me as we do not have high state intervention in industry and we have a high minimum wage. Canada is thousands of miles away so of course is not such a competitive threat as the UK is. Distance does matter in trade, as has oft been noted on this thread.

This is a small price to pay for the long-term drop in the wealth of the country no deal or a bad deal brings - wealth that could be put to good use - our nursing homes are crying out for more money, local councils' services in many parts of the country have been severely cut back since the Global Financial Crisis, a big question mark hangs over UK high streets and we are entering a big economic downturn that should not be worsened.

The EU replaced the Commonwealth as the UK's main trading partner and like the Commonwealth, the larger market helped create wealth. The difference with the EU was that it was a more competitive market. The UK could no longer force compliant nations to take ships full of Austin Allegros with square steering wheels made by people on strike every month. It had to raise its game and productivity and finally compete with its peers. It has stepped up to this challenge and many British services, products and companies are now once again world class.

There is no pipeline of deals that will replace the EU and the deals it has brought us. If such deals existed, the EU would have signed them already. And the basic rule of trade is that most trade is done with your neighbouring countries.

It's unrealistic to blame a larger organisation for having more negotiating clout than a smaller one. I think if you read the threads from 2016, there are warnings a plenty on this. I believe we even suggested that the Government would be rushing to blame the EU for not giving them what they promised the British electorate, although this was unlikely as the German car companies would force the EU to concede to our demands! Instead, you need to put this to those who knowingly or unknowingly mislead the country when they said "easiest trade deal ever."

Your big mistake, Andrew, is assuming that the EU is the only solution to be part of a bigger market, and you completely fail to understand that the EU is making unreasonable demands of us to get a no-tariff trade deal. To accept these demands would undermine our sovereignty and undermine the benefits of Brexit.

There are other trading blocs we could join. The most obvious to me is the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Prtnership (CPTPP), which already comprises 11 countries including Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Mexico and Peru. If Britain joined, this would comprise 16% of global commerce. That's bigger than the EU, and it is fast growing as a productive group of nations, whereas the EU is expected to decline.

The CPTPP is expected to generate about 25% of trade by 2050, whereas the poorly performing EU will manage only 10%. If we want a tariff-free deal, we could do a lot worse than joining the CPTPP. Why are posters on this forum not talking about opportunities such as these instead of bemoaning our departure of the failing EU? GB is not a one-trick pony and Liz Truss is already forging ahead with negotiations to join the much more promising CPTPP while continuing to seek trade deals with the US and others.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The piece in red above is text not written by me. I have been misquoted.

I can respond to your other points once that has been cleared up.

Sorry, I edited my post to include this and indavertently put it in your post. I couldn't see it in my post when I checked so added it to my post.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Your big mistake, Andrew, is assuming that the EU is the only solution to be part of a bigger market, and you completely fail to understand that the EU is making unreasonable demands of us to get a no-tariff trade deal. To accept these demands would undermine our sovereignty and undermine the benefits of Brexit.

There are other trading blocs we could join. The most obvious to me is the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Prtnership (CPTPP), which already comprises 11 countries including Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Mexico and Peru. If Britain joined, this would comprise 16% of global commerce. That's bigger than the EU, and it is fast growing as a productive group of nations, whereas the EU is expected to decline.

The CPTPP is expected to generate about 25% of trade by 2050, whereas the poorly performing EU will manage only 10%. If we want a tariff-free deal, we could do a lot worse than joining the CPTPP. Why are posters on this forum not talking about opportunities such as these instead of bemoaning our departure of the failing EU? GB is not a one-trick pony and Liz Truss is already forging ahead with negotiations to join the much more promising CPTPP while continuing to seek trade deals with the US and others.

Is this the new one after China and the US deals look in peril?

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Sorry, I edited my post to include this and indavertently put it in your post. I couldn't see it in my post when I checked so added it to my post.

You need a couple of fence panels between those posts, stops things slipping through

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Carth

Nursing homes* and Local Council' Services are the same thing, and, along with UK high streets, have been feeling the pinch long before we 'left' the EU.

I remember reading a few months ago that even the Germans were putting the boot (no pun intended) into their own car companies.

I see once again you're concerned about the 'British services' being hit . . . job on the line mate?

*unless you mean private nursing homes are badly run

Nursing homes aren't run by councils are they hence my including it though I appreciate some of their funding may come via councils. I did not link the high street decline to leaving the EU, I linked it to where we could be spending money.

I don't work in the service sector but I think in the current situation many jobs aren't safe, something a no-deal Brexit will only add to. But I hasten to add that's theoretical - Boris will agree to the EU's position when the time is right. As he's done to date.

---------- Post added at 14:00 ---------- Previous post was at 14:00 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

You need a couple of fence panels between those posts, stops things slipping through

More post there than the Royal Mail! Well spotted.

---------- Post added at 14:10 ---------- Previous post was at 14:00 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Your big mistake, Andrew, is assuming that the EU is the only solution to be part of a bigger market, and you completely fail to understand that the EU is making unreasonable demands of us to get a no-tariff trade deal. To accept these demands would undermine our sovereignty and undermine the benefits of Brexit.

There are other trading blocs we could join. The most obvious to me is the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Prtnership (CPTPP), which already comprises 11 countries including Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Mexico and Peru. If Britain joined, this would comprise 16% of global commerce. That's bigger than the EU, and it is fast growing as a productive group of nations, whereas the EU is expected to decline.

The CPTPP is expected to generate about 25% of trade by 2050, whereas the poorly performing EU will manage only 10%. If we want a tariff-free deal, we could do a lot worse than joining the CPTPP. Why are posters on this forum not talking about opportunities such as these instead of bemoaning our departure of the failing EU? GB is not a one-trick pony and Liz Truss is already forging ahead with negotiations to join the much more promising CPTPP while continuing to seek trade deals with the US and others.

Old Boy, the EU has free trade deals with many of those countries anyway plus lots, lots more so a deal with that bloc is just trying to retain a little of what we have already.

Your big opportunity is to understand the economic gravity of trade which explains why most trade takes place with neighbouring countries. https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/to-in...model-of-trade

---------- Post added at 14:21 ---------- Previous post was at 14:10 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Is this the new one after China and the US deals look in peril?

Do you also remember when people were confidently lining up to predict that other countries were about to leave the EU? I think I noted Ireland, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands tipped at one time or the other.

[Carth]

Apologies, it does seem as though all (or the majority of) nursing homes/care homes are private and not council funded.

Which makes me wonder why the very clever entrepreneurial people, who own them or invest in them and charge astronomical fees for their use, are crying out for more money . . . from us the tax payers probably

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Carth

Apologies, it does seem as though all (or the majority of) nursing homes/care homes are private and not council funded.

Which makes me wonder why the very clever entrepreneurial people, who own them or invest in them and charge astronomical fees for their use, are crying out for more money . . . from us the tax payers probably

Natural though. Invest heavily in sectors too big/important to fail. Extract profits squeezing as much as you can between delaying your creditors.

The taxpayer carries the can.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by jfman

Natural though. Invest heavily in sectors too big/important to fail. Extract profits squeezing as much as you can between delaying your creditors.

The taxpayer carries the can.

Sounds like the labour manifesto.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Sounds like the labour manifesto.

At least it’s transparent.

I’ll tee up Carth/Seph with “well the public did see right through it”.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

At least it’s transparent.

I’ll tee up Carth/Seph with “well the public did see right through it”.

Don't remember!

[Carth]

Don't look at me . . . I couldn't even name twelvty labour people on the fingers of both hands