Depends what degree of brainwashing you have been subjected to.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Where are you getting those figures from?
Not necessarily, if you mainly studied economy in highschool, I guess that it's possible. I don't remember what I was taught then, I remember studying classical economics but I don't remember if I was given the explanation about why their theories were partially wrong or imperfect. In College it's a different story, you will study them with more depth.
As just a normal trade deal, I can see that those 3 countries would be amongst the priorities to get deals done with for the British government (though I appreciate it is not the same the other way round but I'd imagine free movement would always be off the table.
I'm pretty sure the Aussies have already said that they'd be opposed as it might lead to an influx of lower skilled workers from the UK to Australia (how the tables would have turned!) and a bit of a brain drain of some higher paid workers to the UK.
@Maticmaker
Fair enough. I can't say I agree with your point of view or hold your optimism for what the future will hold (or for that matter, understand why the UK wouldn't be able to enact UK specific defences against climate change and, even if we think that the EU's laws aren't going far enough wrt climate change, any reason why we can't go above and beyond them ourselves) but I hope your optimism is well placed.
Fair enough. I can't say I agree with your point of view or hold your optimism for what the future will hold (or for that matter, understand why the UK wouldn't be able to enact UK specific defences against climate change and, even if we think that the EU's laws aren't going far enough wrt climate change, any reason why we can't go above and beyond them ourselves) but I hope your optimism is well placed.
Those preparation would not never been decided in Brussels as it is not decided in Washington on behalf of California. Is the same as immigration, was never decided in Brussels how UK should act on long term EU immigration (and of course non EU immigration)
The committee in Brussels has never made those decisions for the UK. The UK have been free to create and implement all these laws and rules.
Export Opportunities by Relatedness
#permalink to section
The top export opportunities for United Kingdom according to the relatedness index, are Tin Foil (0.36), Medical Instruments (0.35), Special Pharmaceuticals (0.35), Leather Used in Machinery (0.35), and Planes, Helicopters, and/or Spacecraft (0.35). Relatedness measures the distance between a country's current exports and each product. The barchart show only products that United Kingdom is not specialized in.
From the latest OEC data - the top export opportunity for the UK is Tin Foil, why does this not surprise me.
#permalink to section
The top export opportunities for United Kingdom according to the relatedness index, are Tin Foil (0.36), Medical Instruments (0.35), Special Pharmaceuticals (0.35), Leather Used in Machinery (0.35), and Planes, Helicopters, and/or Spacecraft (0.35). Relatedness measures the distance between a country's current exports and each product. The barchart show only products that United Kingdom is not specialized in.
From the latest OEC data - the top export opportunity for the UK is Tin Foil, why does this not surprise me.
ONS, EU and the BBC News site during the referendum. Its been posted several times and isn't really disputed although they are pre Covid.
Would it make a difference to you if they prove to be true?
What did you think the trade deficit Britain runs with the EU was/is ?
Germany runs a 200 billion Euro surplus from EU trade Britain runs at least a 65 billion deficit and both paid ball park similar contributions.
There are no reasons for voting Brexit though, right?
Are you sure because I thought the GM debate was shite and we ended up tied to a protectionist anti GM food policy even if the facts about GM in the end prove it to be useful?
That's an interesting topic because the commission is favorable to it but many member states are against them and banned them, France being one of them. The reason there is a limited amount of authorized GMOs is because member states and in particular large ones don't want them.
Why are you so concerned with trade deficits? It's not inherently negative or inherently positive, it just means that they have stuff you want. If you're not going to buy it from them, you're going to buy it from someone else, or not buy it at all.
Neither side of politics in Australia has any interest in a full CANZUK deal. Trade deal yes but free movement not a chance. It is a few Australian Anglophiles' wet dream but nothing more.
Last edited:
And who else are people in the UK going to buy BMW's from?
Oh well I must be right then and some how I missed the EU directive extolling its virtues and demanding the dropping of opposition to trade deals on the false grounds GM is dangerous.
No, I didn't miss any such thing because as you know your post is pretty much the EU response ducking the issue and then pontificating about how its an outward looking free trade area. While actually being systematically protectionist.
The EU is the tool by which nation states within it protect their markets from competition from outside. Some times that is unfair competition and that is understandable but some times its not and when advances in tech disrupt existing systems and beggar sunk investment the EU stands in its way on behalf of very rich capitalists. If the EU isn't the body to decide on these matters based on science then what is it doing and who does it serve. Not the people that is for sure.
Stupid people who want to talk about Frankenstein food and scare story Monsanto bullshit and push to ban them were useful idiots. I'd bet every thing I own that if the boot was on the other foot the EU would be extolling the advances in GM farming and all the presidents of all the EU .... Presidencies would be pictured eating GM corn and welcoming in the new 21st century food that will save the world.
Mmm,
This is one of those questions which take you so far back in a line of logic that for a moment you don't know how to answer it.
I guess if you don't mind being dirt poor and ignorant it doesn't matter. Since most people, governments and any one with common sense understand it is really important then you would be the exception in countering the current concept of world trade and mercantilism.
Think about it for a minute, why is the EU/ UK post Brexit trade deal so controversial if it doesn't matter who benefits in terms of net trade it wouldn't..
If you are super rich and can live anywhere then I apologies for bring real lives and how real people live into your life.
I count about five 'veiled' fedora-donning insults in that post, but no actual answer.
I mean for feck's sake, how far up your own ass do you have to be type this in all seriousness?
Good to see how brexiteers arguments have evolved in the four years since 
It's the perfect conspiracy only somehow one conspirator felt left out.
It's the perfect conspiracy only somehow one conspirator felt left out.Ha ha! True.
I'm happy to criticise the EU. But I've seen conversations like this before. Any "answer" will be various regurgitations of inaccurate rhetoric. So in that respect you've got off lightly.
What are you on about? The EU has never told you that it wasn't protectionist, all trade markets are protectionists that's the point of their existence allow barriers for entry within WTO rules, you are dreaming about theories that only you imagined. And once again it's some member states that don't want GMOs, you should tag team with the commission and try to convince the likes of France or Germany to allow GMOs because you are both on the same side.
And to make it clear EU directives authorizes GMOs but ultimately it's a case by case process that is the responsibility of each member states.
Last edited:
Presume you do realise that the UK runs a trade deficit with the rest of the world of about $200bn , about $40bn with China for example. Whether you're in the EU, out of the EU or shaking it all about you're going to have a trade deficit with someone purely because the UK imports more than it exports. Of course when the UK leaves the transition period overall the deficit will increase having brought additional costs by tearing up all the trade deals and customs union deal.
Question is with which countries would the UK rather have a trade deficit.
Last edited:
Yes I do, the combined effects of living in a post Covid virus world and the need to deal specifically, in the UK, with the actual/real effects of climate change rather than keep pretending we can do something about it, means we need to be able to move quickly and flexibly. Its not about environmental protection anymore its about survival.
Monolithic organizations such as the EU are unable to deal with the transient impact caused by these massive changes in the 'norm'. Remember the EU is supposedly a trading block, but its real aim is to build a United States of Europe. The fact the respective economies of the northern and southern states are so different reflects the countries landscapes, traditions, population issues, etc. its one thing trying to manage economies, its another managing storms, flood, water shortages, crop failures, considerable reduction in tourism, massive refugee movements, etc..
I am not saying all this will happen next week, next year or even the next decade, so current governments have no real bearing except to try to figure out how hard and how often and in what areas are the post effects of Covid and changes in climate going to affect us. China has been able to make great strides in the last century because the stability of its government (right or wrong) gets things done and plans in 50 year cycles, we don't work like that, at least not for the present!
Ok, so lets get the figures right as a starting point. I will highlight the points you have wrong.
In 2019, the UK’s exports of goods and services totalled £700 billion and imports totalled £724 billion. The EU accounted for 43% of UK exports of goods and services and 51% of imports in 2019.
Overall, the UK imports more than it exports meaning that it runs a trade deficit. A deficit of £129 billion on trade in goods was partially offset by a surplus of £106 billion on trade in services in 2019. The overall trade deficit was £24 billion in 2019.
The UK had a trade deficit with the EU of £72 billion in 2019 and a trade surplus of £48 billion with non-EU countries.
At what point would being wrong on matters of fact embarrass you enough to shut up spouting nonsense in this thread Paul?
I know its never going to happen but I just wondered.
Why oh why would anyone think the trade deal we have with the EU is shite for the UK. ( sarcasm)
Then again we have people on the thread who don't understand why its important to try to run a surplus on trade, so is there any point in continuing the debate as the pile on from no nothing ass hats will continue unabated.
Unsurprisingly you've missed the point entirely.
The figures I quoted were for goods but it doesn't really matter.
So, you change the destinations and origins of all the products you export and import but you still end up with the same overall deficit plus the additional cost of transport, duties, delays; hassle, time and so on.
Let me know this time next year how shite the trade deal was with the EU.
Good luck. They can’t even wear a simple face mask
you mean when entering a bank?The people currently running the country
The EU? Oh sorry, see what you mean.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
How does the EU prevent Britain from protecting its own soil against the effects of climate change? And why do you think it's better to have to deal with catastrophes on your own rather than with the help of over 20 other countries, however imperfect that help might be?
The weirdest thing about that tweet is that Banks has retweeted it himself.
Follow the money. Always follow the money.
Mainly because the EU need to decided everything on a basis of what suits 27 members, the vast majority having common land borders and needing agreement therefore on various environmental changes, whether it be simple landscaping or changing the course of rivers, providing tunnels and other large scale construction projects. Most of these would not affect the UK (or Ireland for that matter) because we are offshore islands (to the majority of Europe's land mass) and we would need to do many things different, spend in different ways, all of which would produce havoc over a seven year EU budget, basically our needs are likely to be different.
Instead of getting on with it we would be spending years arguing the toss in Brussels, which by then it could well be too late.
But every country has its own policies. French laws and goals have been solely decided by french governments, industries and NGOs. They are not decided or even discussed by the EU, your idea of the EU is totally wrong, you seem to think that it has a lot more influence than it actually has.
Are you trying to say that every larger construction project within the EU needs approval from all member states?
Again, total nonsense.
I understand why you want to leave the EU, basically because you don't have any understanding whatsoever of how it works
If you read my previous posts, the changes are in the future. I refer to changes that are attempts not to prevent climate change occurring, but combating climate changes already taking places and any changes brought about post Covid. This is all in the future and it is that future I am referring to, i.e. when the EU has achieved its stated aim of closer Union and has become the United States of Europe.
In such circumstances all member states will need to be within the same monetary union i.e. euro-zone, and the federal budget and decision making will be done through Brussels. As an off shore island the UK's needs in such matters will be significantly different, they may be combating the same problems but will take different solutions to those required in a larger land mass.
Last edited:
This makes no sense whatsoever. First whether the EU become a United states of Europe is the sole decision of member states and an individual decision, secondly countries however they are organized do not manage their territories indiscriminately for example within the UK a region that is bordered by the sea won't have the same issues than a region that is landlocked would you make the point that these two regions shouldn't be in the UK because they have different needs?
But any USE which ends up happening (I personally don't see it, though I think it is a great idea personally) would be like the USA. So large that the individual states would have a huge amount of leeway to run their states as they see fit. In so many ways, a Californian is not living the same life as someone in Alabama.
In this instance, the Netherlands for instance is totally screwed as climate change goes on and certainly far more than a country like Germany. Yet I am sure, even within the EU's framework, whether it stays as is or becomes a closer political union, they will be able to build totally different defences to cope with their very different circumstances.
Any theoretical USE would be far too large, far too culturally different, far too populous, for an attempt to run everything centrally from Brussels.