Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Webbo]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Here's an interesting quote re. global trade deals replacing any loss of trade with the EU:

 

"It is tempting to look at developing countries' economies, with their high growth rates, and see them as an alternative to trade with Europe. But just look at the reality of our trading relationship with China - with its dumping policies, protective tariffs and industrial-scale industrial espionage. And look at the figures. We export more to Ireland than we do to China, almost twice as much to Belgium as we do to India, and nearly three times as much to Sweden as we do to Brazil. It is not realistic to think we could just replace European trade with these new markets. And while we could certainly negotiate our own trade agreements, there would be no guarantee that they would be on terms as good as those we enjoy now. There would also be a considerable opportunity cost given the need to replace the existing agreements - not least with the EU itself - that we would have torn up as a consequence of our departure."

 

 

Think about that for a minute....we export more to Ireland than to China, twice as much to Belgium as to India, nearly three times as much to Sweden as to Brazil.....

 

Do you know who that quote is from?

 

 

Theresa May (April 2016)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38653681

 

 

That's because we don't have free trade with China,India and Brazil but we do with Ireland, Belgium and Sweden. That's sort of the point of leaving the customs union so we can. 

[Alf Bentley]

17 minutes ago, Webbo said:

That's because we don't have free trade with China,India and Brazil but we do with Ireland, Belgium and Sweden. That's sort of the point of leaving the customs union so we can. 

 

Simple as that, eh? Shame neither Theresa May, nor the EU, nor China realised how easy it would be to do such beneficial free trade deals or they might have done them.

 

Let's hope we don't lose too many of our existing European export markets in the meantime.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Simple as that, eh? Shame neither Theresa May, nor the EU, nor China realised how easy it would be to do such beneficial free trade deals or they might have done them.

 

Let's hope we don't lose too many of our existing European export markets in the meantime.

It's a lot simpler when it's just two countries and you don't have to appease the vested interest of 28 different countries.

[Barky]

56 minutes ago, Webbo said:

That's because we don't have free trade with China,India and Brazil but we do with Ireland, Belgium and Sweden. That's sort of the point of leaving the customs union so we can. 

Probably more to do with the fact that we produce very little that those countries would a) want to buy and b) not be a lot better off sourcing locally. Proximity is a big factor, we're a long way from anywhere that isn't Europe.

 

In other news HSBC are dumping us for Paris. This news conveniently buried by a 'thick-rant' from our very own Donald Trump impersonator, Boris Johnson.

[Webbo]

6 minutes ago, Barky said:

Probably more to do with the fact that we produce very little that those countries would a) want to buy and b) not be a lot better off sourcing locally. Proximity is a big factor, we're a long way from anywhere that isn't Europe.

 

In other news HSBC are dumping us for Paris. This news conveniently buried by a 'thick-rant' from our very own Donald Trump impersonator, Boris Johnson.

We're the same distance from them as they are from us.

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Barky said:

 

In other news HSBC are dumping us for Paris. This news conveniently buried by a 'thick-rant' from our very own Donald Trump impersonator, Boris Johnson.

I wonder if they will take all the nasty bankers with them, the ones that caused the financial crash.

[Barky]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

We're the same distance from them as they are from us.

I know that. What difference does it make? We buy from them because they make a lot of cheap shit. We don't make any cheap shit. What are we going to sell to china that they can't already make themselves a lot cheaper? We've got a few prestige brands, a bit of engineering, but nowhere near the level of mass mainstream manufacturing that allows them to sell a considerable value of stuff to us. We could have the absolute perfect free trade deal with china, but that won't change the fundamental fact that there's not a lot of ours they want to buy.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Barky said:

I know that. What difference does it make? We buy from them because they make a lot of cheap shit. We don't make any cheap shit. What are we going to sell to china that they can't already make themselves a lot cheaper? We've got a few prestige brands, a bit of engineering, but nowhere near the level of mass mainstream manufacturing that allows them to sell a considerable value of stuff to us. We could have the absolute perfect free trade deal with china, but that won't change the fundamental fact that there's not a lot of ours they want to buy.

Jaguars, Range Rovers, Bentleys, Rolls Royces, designer goods, whisky, gin, financial services, pharmaceuticals, various different foods. I'm sure there are others.

[Barky]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Jaguars, Range Rovers, Bentleys, Rolls Royces, designer goods, whisky, gin, financial services, pharmaceuticals, various different foods. I'm sure there are others.

Mostly prestige brands then. Although I'm pretty sure half of them brands aren't even British. Jaguar Land Rover for one is Indian owned. The problem with prestige brands is that people buy them because they're expensive, so having a free trade deal and making them half a percent cheaper will make no difference.

 

Various different foods? Like what?

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Barky said:

Mostly prestige brands then. Although I'm pretty sure half of them brands aren't even British. Jaguar Land Rover for one is Indian. The problem with prestige brands is that people buy them because they're expensive, so having a free trade deal and making them half a percent cheaper will make no difference.

 

Various different foods? Like what?

I believe we already export pork and dairy products to China. There's a lot of people there, they all need to eat.

 

If tariffs are only half a percent then we don't have a lot to worry about being outside the single market.

[Barky]

Just now, Webbo said:

I believe we already export pork and dairy products to China. There's a lot of people there, they all need to eat.

 

If tariffs are only half a percent then we don't have a lot to worry about being outside the single market.

I don't know what tariffs the eu will impose on us when we leave. My point is that having the ability to negotiate free trade with the likes of china isn't going to magically transform our export offering into something that could generate anything like what we get from our neighbours. 

[Webbo]

Just now, Barky said:

I don't know what tariffs the eu will impose on us when we leave. My point is that having the ability to negotiate free trade with the likes of china isn't going to magically transform our export offering into something that could generate anything like what we get from our neighbours. 

I think the average WTO tariff is 2.5%, something like 10% on cars which is a lot of money on a Range Rover. This is all from the press coverage of Brexit, I'm sure you've read similar.

[Guest MattP]

43 minutes ago, Barky said:

This news conveniently buried by a 'thick-rant' from our very own Donald Trump impersonator, Boris Johnson.

Behave, people are just trying to be offended now, it was a witty, amusing little metaphor, had anyone said it but Boris it wouldn't have even made the news, let alone bury it.

[Barky]

Just now, MattP said:

Behave, people are just trying to be offended now, it was a witty, amusing little metaphor, had anyone said it but Boris it wouldn't have even made the news, let alone bury it.

I don't even know what he said. As soon as I saw the headlines about Boris Johnson saying something about WW2 I knew I had no interest in reading it. But it has pushed far more important news down the pecking order, which may well have been the intention.

[BlueSi13]

55 minutes ago, Barky said:

Probably more to do with the fact that we produce very little that those countries would a) want to buy and b) not be a lot better off sourcing locally. Proximity is a big factor, we're a long way from anywhere that isn't Europe.

 

In other news HSBC are dumping us for Paris. This news conveniently buried by a 'thick-rant' from our very own Donald Trump impersonator, Boris Johnson.

No.  They aren't.  They said they a proportion of jobs MAY have to relocate post-Brexit.

 

What they have confirmed for certain is that its global headquarters will remain in London and its UK headquarters will remain in Birmingham.  Sorry to disappoint you.

[Sharpe's Fox]

Not half as bothered about how Boris says things than I am as what he says. The man is a snake and can't stop lying to further himself. Even his name and persona is a lie to create a narrative.

 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

It's a lot simpler when it's just two countries and you don't have to appease the vested interest of 28 different countries.

 

I'm sure there's some truth in that. However, a medium-sized trading nation would find it harder to do a good deal with a major power like China than a major economic power like the USA or EU would, due to the imbalance of power.

 

Out of curiosity, I just checked re. the USA. Despite being a single country, not a bloc, it seems to have no free trade deal with China, India or Brazil. Only with 20 other small/medium countries, mainly from Latin America & the Middle East:

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements

[Innovindil]

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm sure there's some truth in that. However, a medium-sized trading nation would find it harder to do a good deal with a major power like China than a major economic power like the USA or EU would, due to the imbalance of power.

 

Out of curiosity, I just checked re. the USA. Despite being a single country, not a bloc, it seems to have no free trade deal with China, India or Brazil. Only with 20 other small/medium countries, mainly from Latin America & the Middle East:

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements

Soon to be 21. 

[Barky]

24 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

No.  They aren't.  They said they a proportion of jobs MAY have to relocate post-Brexit.

 

What they have confirmed for certain is that its global headquarters will remain in London and its UK headquarters will remain in Birmingham.  Sorry to disappoint you.

 

Quote from one of the banks says they will be moving. Doesn't sound like a bluff. If it is a bluff, what do we have to give them to stay? It won't be free.

 

mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1520SO

[Innovindil]

3 minutes ago, Barky said:

 

Quote from one of the banks says they will be moving. Doesn't sound like a bluff. If it is a bluff, what do we have to give them to stay? It won't be free.

 

mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1520SO

Read the first line please:

 

Two of Europe's biggest banks warned on Wednesday they could each move around 1,000 jobs out of London

 

Could. Could each move. 

 

Maybe. Possibly. Might do. 

 

In the end, it's a portion, their head offices will remain in London. 

 

Not seeing the big deal tbf. They won't move until negotiations are complete. They won't spend money moving until they absolutely have to. So far, it's meaningless posturing. 

[Alf Bentley]

35 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Soon to be 21. 

 

Maybe. But I wouldn't expect a defensive, muscle-flexing nationalist-populist like Trump to offer us any gifts. Any deal will have to be on terms suiting the USA to the max, I imagine.

[Barky]

23 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Read the first line please:

 

Two of Europe's biggest banks warned on Wednesday they could each move around 1,000 jobs out of London

 

Could. Could each move. 

 

Maybe. Possibly. Might do. 

 

In the end, it's a portion, their head offices will remain in London. 

 

Not seeing the big deal tbf. They won't move until negotiations are complete. They won't spend money moving until they absolutely have to. So far, it's meaningless posturing. 

There is a direct quote from one of the big wigs saying they "will" be leaving. His statement is not ambiguous at all. Like I said they might be bluffing, but it looks to me like they're not, and that they are going to leave.  Head office location means nothing. You could have a head office based on the uk with no staff at all.

[Innovindil]

27 minutes ago, Barky said:

There is a direct quote from one of the big wigs saying they "will" be leaving. His statement is not ambiguous at all. Like I said they might be bluffing, but it looks to me like they're not, and that they are going to leave.  Head office location means nothing. You could have a head office based on the uk with no staff at all.

There is one direct quote of:

 

"We will move in about two years time when Brexit becomes effective," HSBC's Gulliver told Reuters at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum.

 

Context? Full transcript? Did the quote start with "If we decide to move staff"? 

 

It's literally a cherry picked line for maximum shock value, that's it. 

 

And about empty head offices. They said they will move 1000 staff. They currently have 5000 working here. Do the other 4k just **** off then? 

 

You are either incredibly naive, or couldn't be arsed to read the whole thing. 

 

Banks will NOT spend money moving staff until it becomes a certainty that they have to waste the money doing so. They even said it would be in 2 years time, meaning at the end of negotiations. So for now, it's complete posturing, and very little else. 

[BlueSi13]

13 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

There is one direct quote of:

 

"We will move in about two years time when Brexit becomes effective," HSBC's Gulliver told Reuters at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum.

 

Context? Full transcript? Did the quote start with "If we decide to move staff"? 

 

It's literally a cherry picked line for maximum shock value, that's it. 

 

And about empty head offices. They said they will move 1000 staff. They currently have 5000 working here. Do the other 4k just **** off then? 

 

You are either incredibly naive, or couldn't be arsed to read the whole thing. 

 

Banks will NOT spend money moving staff until it becomes a certainty that they have to waste the money doing so. They even said it would be in 2 years time, meaning at the end of negotiations. So for now, it's complete posturing, and very little else. 

Don't forget that it's posturing that's being absolutely lapped up by large sections of our pro-EU press (looking squarely at you BBC) who were devastated when the PM knocked it out of the park yesterday.  

 

Looks like they are doubling down with the latest Boris 'OUTRAGE' as well tonight.  It's getting beyond desperate from them now.  

[Alf Bentley]

21 hours ago, MattP said:

Don't think I've ever seen the print press be so united behind a political speech from a Prime Minister.

 

Needless to say, the continental press were less impressed..... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/18/jean-claude-juncker-says-brexit-talks-will-be-very-very-very-difficult

 

“Little Britain – May leads Britain into isolation,” was the front-page headline in Germany’s Die Welt, while Italy’s La Repubblica opted for: “Brexit: London puts up its wall – out of EU and single market.”

 

Even more outspoken was Der Spiegel, which summarised May’s negotiating stance as “I want, I want, I want". In an article also published in English, the magazine’s UK correspondent said Britain’s plans amounted to “wilful self-mutilation”.

May “promised her country a glorious future” but has little control over it, he said. She will have to offer her allies more than graciously “allowing them to export prosecco and cars” to the UK. “She needs Europe. Adjectives alone won’t help her,” Scheuerman wrote.

El País, Spain’s biggest-selling daily paper, was equally scathing, saying in an editorial that May had set out “a road map for a complete British self-exclusion from the EU” and a “hard, extreme and extremist Brexit”.

The paper said this marked “a radical change of position” from May’s “timid, bashful Europeanism” as home secretary, to support for a “shameful, xenophobic nationalism”. The promise of a positive agreement was fallacious, it said.

For Spain’s ABC, the headline was: “May threatens EU with trade war,” while Denmark’s Politiken said May’s speech marked the moment the British “slam the door hard shut on the EU”.

Le Monde said in an editorial Brexit would be hard “... for the British”.

 

"We are UK, super UK. No-one likes us. We don't care!"