AeroVega wrote:

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

In 2018 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4 billion.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.for ... rules/amp/

Peanuts in GDP terms - 0.4%.

2018 spending on Social Security, NHS and Defence totalled nearly £380 billion or 18% of GDP.

But for some of that money you get hospitals, doctors, a relatively strong military, etc. Where does the money to the EU go to? It is mostly wasted on handouts and bureaucrats. The fact that the EU decided to keep the same number of MEPs after losing the UK ones is one example how the EU thinks it can waste EU citizens' money anyway it likes. The EU could have avoided Brexit if it had reflected on its wasteful nature and done something about it, such as ending the travelling circus to Strasbourg.

The EU is a far, far more efficient bureaucracy than any of its member states has... by far. Very far. You can expect to or three fold increase when the UK takes those tasks over.

Also yields ROI in GDP, as Boris himself use to know.

Best regards
Thomas

AeroVega wrote:

But for some of that money you get hospitals, doctors, a relatively strong military, etc. Where does the money to the EU go to? It is mostly wasted on handouts and bureaucrats. The fact that the EU decided to keep the same number of MEPs after losing the UK ones is one example how the EU thinks it can waste EU citizens' money anyway it likes. The EU could have avoided Brexit if it had reflected on its wasteful nature and done something about it, such as ending the travelling circus to Strasbourg.

That is not true. The number of MEP‘s has been reduced from 751 to just 705

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/ ... ns-in-2019

AeroVega wrote:

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

In 2018 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4 billion.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.for ... rules/amp/

Peanuts in GDP terms - 0.4%.

2018 spending on Social Security, NHS and Defence totalled nearly £380 billion or 18% of GDP.

But for some of that money you get hospitals, doctors, a relatively strong military, etc.

To put things into perspective.

AeroVega wrote:

Where does the money to the EU go to?

EU budgets are out in the open, so please educate yourself.

AeroVega wrote:

It is mostly wasted on handouts and bureaucrats.

How much of the EU budget is handouts? What is that anyway? And how much is spent on bureaucrats? You have looked up the budget, so you know......

AeroVega wrote:

The fact that the EU decided to keep the same number of MEPs after losing the UK ones is one example how the EU thinks it can waste EU citizens' money anyway it likes.

Really? Wasn't it because the EU didn't want to negotiate another treaty, just because the Brits decided to leave? I would argue that that was the reason, not to spend the money to do that.

AeroVega wrote:

The EU could have avoided Brexit if it had reflected on its wasteful nature and done something about it, such as ending the travelling circus to Strasbourg.

Nobody is in favor of Strassbourg, except France. The truth is that Britain has had a lot of leeways when it comes to the EU, lots of exemptions. There is nothing the EU could have done more, they wanted to leave and left, fine. Don't blame the EU for this.

A101 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

In 2018 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was forecast to be £4 billion.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.for ... rules/amp/

Peanuts in GDP terms - 0.4%.

2018 spending on Social Security, NHS and Defence totalled nearly £380 billion or 18% of GDP.

Might be peanuts but they are still split over it, otherwise they would have agreed by now.Oh don’t forget to add that extra billion that they hit us with that’s an extra 7 billion over 7 years on top of the £91B out of the kitty.

One also has to remember government generally don’t add to the budget they normally rob Peter to pay Paul

And in return it got a major vehicle and finance industry. Finance industry by itself generates close 1/5 of total tax revenue for the uk government.

You need to be very sure on you calculations that loss of SM access will not be more expensive compared to 0.4 % of uk GDP..... With a small misscalculation what happens then?

A odd statement from Macron

he “deeply regrets” that a deal was not reached, adding that the failure of the summit shows “we don’t need Britain to show disunity.”

Funny a while ago it was all about unity, admitting the EU is just as dysfunctional as the last UK parliament was,

And if reports are right about Guy Verhofstadt apparently he argued that the failure of the budget talks was yet another reason to centralize the EU and turn it into a proper “empire” with taxation powers of its own.

https://mobile.twitter.com/guyverhofsta ... 0874513411

Before the election day in 2016 the brittish people was presented that a new bright future was about to arrive in the moment that UK was out of EU. Now it has happened.

Wrer is all the FTAs? Why is not EU begging UK for pardon? Even if new year 2021 counts why is not 2021 being considered as the moment to look forward for?

Why is there discussions about the breaking up of UK?

When will the future of milk and honey arrive?

olle wrote:

A101 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Peanuts in GDP terms - 0.4%.

2018 spending on Social Security, NHS and Defence totalled nearly £380 billion or 18% of GDP.

Might be peanuts but they are still split over it, otherwise they would have agreed by now.Oh don’t forget to add that extra billion that they hit us with that’s an extra 7 billion over 7 years on top of the £91B out of the kitty.

One also has to remember government generally don’t add to the budget they normally rob Peter to pay Paul

And in return it got a major vehicle and finance industry. Finance industry by itself generates close 1/5 of total tax revenue for the uk government.

You need to be very sure on you calculations that loss of SM access will not be more expensive compared to 0.4 % of uk GDP..... With a small misscalculation what happens then?

Are you say it could not have been accomplished if the EU did not exist or it was not because of reforms in the late 80’s taking effect

As for the loss of the SM that’s up to free enterprise to figure out if the market can bare the additional cost if we trade under WTO with the EU, but I’m expecting in the next 6-12 mths will be a hive of announcements of trade deals within the commonwealth sphere and a little longer with S Korea Japan and the US to name a few

A101 wrote:

As for the loss of the SM that’s up to free enterprise to figure out if the market can bare the additional cost if we trade under WTO with the EU

Fine, what exclusive products has the UK to offer the EU that nobody makes that actually has a deal with the EU or some other EU countries? Or is are UK producers of good just lower their prices to remain competitive.

A101 wrote:

but I’m expecting in the next 6-12 mths will be a hive of announcements of trade deals within the commonwealth sphere and a little longer with S Korea Japan and the US to name a few

Why hasn't Johnson got any tradedeals? I thought it was easy to do?

We know that Australi, New Zealand aren't there yet, America said any UK deal will be at the end of the line. So South Korea and Japan are jumping at the opportunity? Could you please point to a source which backs-up your statement?

Number6 wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

But for some of that money you get hospitals, doctors, a relatively strong military, etc. Where does the money to the EU go to? It is mostly wasted on handouts and bureaucrats. The fact that the EU decided to keep the same number of MEPs after losing the UK ones is one example how the EU thinks it can waste EU citizens' money anyway it likes. The EU could have avoided Brexit if it had reflected on its wasteful nature and done something about it, such as ending the travelling circus to Strasbourg.

That is not true. The number of MEP‘s has been reduced from 751 to just 705

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/ ... ns-in-2019

I stand corrected.

Still, the EU decided to reallocate 27 of the 73 UK seats. That's 27 more MEPs and staff to pay after one of the largest net contributors has left the club. Like the Strasbourg circus, such acts are highly visible symbols of waste that make EU citizens despise the EU.

AeroVega wrote:

But for some of that money you get hospitals, doctors, a relatively strong military, etc. Where does the money to the EU go to? It is mostly wasted on handouts and bureaucrats. The fact that the EU decided to keep the same number of MEPs after losing the UK ones is one example how the EU thinks it can waste EU citizens' money anyway it likes. The EU could have avoided Brexit if it had reflected on its wasteful nature and done something about it, such as ending the travelling circus to Strasbourg.

EU internal spending is a fig leaf. It couldn’t - and didn’t - move the barometer. Beyond the notion of “Governments waste money”, your average Brexiteer probably didn’t have a clue about the details until they suddenly found themselves having to justify their leave vote to the angry remain 48% of their country.

Let’s be real, some of the presumably better educated Brexiteers on this forum aren’t even familiar with the fact their own state is a union of four nations. What makes you think they knew what Strasbourg was before 2016? As to their economic or fiscal sensibility, they just handed over a mandate to increase government spending across the board without any details on how that money will be raised. This, in a country that pays ~50 billion GBP/year just to service debt. In fact, all the chatter now is about loosening fiscal rules and borrowing even more. How many Brexit voters care?

AeroVega wrote:

Number6 wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

But for some of that money you get hospitals, doctors, a relatively strong military, etc. Where does the money to the EU go to? It is mostly wasted on handouts and bureaucrats. The fact that the EU decided to keep the same number of MEPs after losing the UK ones is one example how the EU thinks it can waste EU citizens' money anyway it likes. The EU could have avoided Brexit if it had reflected on its wasteful nature and done something about it, such as ending the travelling circus to Strasbourg.

That is not true. The number of MEP‘s has been reduced from 751 to just 705

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/ ... ns-in-2019

I stand corrected.

Still, the EU decided to reallocate 27 of the 73 UK seats. That's 27 more MEPs and staff to pay after one of the largest net contributors has left the club. Like the Strasbourg circus, such acts are highly visible symbols of waste that make EU citizens despise the EU.

About 6% of the EU budget is allocated to administration (which includes elected officials). You are right, it is symbols, nothing coming close to something substantial. Why even talk about this?

A101 wrote:

A odd statement from Macron

he “deeply regrets” that a deal was not reached, adding that the failure of the summit shows “we don’t need Britain to show disunity.”

Funny a while ago it was all about unity, admitting the EU is just as dysfunctional as the last UK parliament was,

And if reports are right about Guy Verhofstadt apparently he argued that the failure of the budget talks was yet another reason to centralize the EU and turn it into a proper “empire” with taxation powers of its own.

https://mobile.twitter.com/guyverhofsta ... 0874513411

Has this happened at precious budget negotiations, or is it the first time there’s been disagreement within the EU about the budget? Don’t they eventually reach a deal? Isn’t this the nature of internal negotiations?

If you’re certain that this is it - this is the moment that Alliance unity failed and the EU is done for, I have a bridge to sell you.

As for Verhofstadt, that tweet reads like he’s out to troll Eurosceptics. Pretty amusing use of the word “empire”, which he literally leaves in quotation marks.

Dutchy wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

It is mostly wasted on handouts and bureaucrats.

How much of the EU budget is handouts? What is that anyway? And how much is spent on bureaucrats? You have looked up the budget, so you know......

CAP + rural development is close to half of the EU budget. CAP is a handout. Rural development is temporary job creation program where the created jobs disappear as soon as the subsidy is spent. What about the other half? A good part of it goes to financing the various regulatory agencies, which, like most government organizations, are unaccountable bastions of bureaucracy.

A101 wrote:

As for the loss of the SM that’s up to free enterprise to figure out if the market can bare the additional cost if we trade under WTO with the EU, but I’m expecting in the next 6-12 mths will be a hive of announcements of trade deals within the commonwealth sphere and a little longer with S Korea Japan and the US to name a few

But it’s turning into a chicken-or-the-egg scenario, isn’t it. If you don’t have trade deals from the get go, imports become expensive/consumer prices go up.

To avoid that, you have to unilaterally cut tariffs and, under WTO rules, give equal tariff-free access to every WTO member.

At which point, they have tariff free access without making any concessions.

This will then leave them wondering why they need to agree to a new trade deal - especially one requiring them to make any concessions - at all.

Remind us again - how many EU-third country trade deals were ready to be rolled over to the UK if a no deal scenario had ensued on 1 February?

AeroVega wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

It is mostly wasted on handouts and bureaucrats.

How much of the EU budget is handouts? What is that anyway? And how much is spent on bureaucrats? You have looked up the budget, so you know......

CAP + rural development is close to half of the EU budget. CAP is a handout. Rural development is temporary job creation program where the created jobs disappear as soon as the subsidy is spent.

Your opinion, not fact.

AeroVega wrote:

What about the other half? A good part of it goes to financing the various regulatory agencies, which, like most government organizations, are unaccountable bastions of bureaucracy.

Your opinion, not fact. But even if true, this will not be cut now you are out, you need regulatory agencies of your own now you are "free".

Meanwhile, jobs keep dripping away.

Barrow voted for Boris to get Brexit done, McBride closes factory there and sends production to France and Luxembourg.

https://www.in-cumbria.com/news/1825069 ... s/?ref=nuo

Dutchy wrote:

Fine, what exclusive products has the UK to offer the EU that nobody makes that actually has a deal with the EU or some other EU countries? Or is are UK producers of good just lower their prices to remain competitive.

Nothing to do with exclusive products, for free enterprise is all about profits margins, and what is the market prepared to pay for the product

Dutchy wrote:

Why hasn't Johnson got any tradedeals? I thought it was easy to do?

We know that Australi, New Zealand aren't there yet, America said any UK deal will be at the end of the line. So South Korea and Japan are jumping at the opportunity? Could you please point to a source which backs-up your statement?

You know the answer to that yourself. Prior to the 31st the UK could not conduct FTA’s, it’s been 3 weeks since we can begin talks and within a 2 weeks the Foreign Secretary meet with his counterparts in a number of Asia Pacific nations to start talks for a trade deal

As to you’re statement on the US, that was under Obama and the house speaker was talking in relation to a hard border with the ROI. Trump is enthusiastic to start it’s not like we trade currently with the US with a trade deal is it, I don’t see Pelousi standing in the way unless it’s to piss Trump off.

ElPistolero wrote:

But it’s turning into a chicken-or-the-egg scenario, isn’t it. If you don’t have trade deals from the get go, imports become expensive/consumer prices go up.

To avoid that, you have to unilaterally cut tariffs and, under WTO rules, give equal tariff-free access to every WTO member.

This will then leave them wondering why they need to agree to a new trade deal - especially one requiring them to make any concessions - at all.

Not necessarily we have a number of mutual recognition agreement in place with our some important trade nations, and from memory they were going to use the current EU external tariffs rates at one point. I guess we will find out when the UK stakes it’s position at the next WTO meeting soon

ElPistolero wrote:

Remind us again - how many EU-third country trade deals were ready to be rolled over to the UK if a no deal scenario had ensued on 1 February?

Enough with our current major trading partners to get by with untill FTA’s are in place, those that declined such as Japan we have had high ministerial talks to start the process

ElPistolero wrote:

Has this happened at precious budget negotiations, or is it the first time there’s been disagreement within the EU about the budget? Don’t they eventually reach a deal? Isn’t this the nature of internal negotiations?

It’s the first time that negotiations have taken place with a glaring budget hole and no one wants to lose there previously held positions, so yes it’s significant you can gloss over it all you want but it is what it is.

ElPistolero wrote:

If you’re certain that this is it - this is the moment that Alliance unity failed and the EU is done for, I have a bridge to sell you.

Did I say it was done for? I think you know my position where the EU is headed by now.

ElPistolero wrote:

As for Verhofstadt, that tweet reads like he’s out to troll Eurosceptics. Pretty amusing use of the word “empire”, which he literally leaves in quotation marks.

It may have been a sarcastic remark in the twitter universe, but there is always an element of truth behind it when one resorts to that kind of thing when taken in context of its surrounding.

The “empire” was a direct reference to the US China it’s not the first time he has used “empire” in describing the US China and Russia for that matter. Verhofstadt is a fanatical supporter of the EU become the United States of Europe which in itself is “empire’ building

zkojq wrote:

Tugger wrote:

As to other places making stuff for 65 million people versus the 450 million of the EU.... why the hell can't the UK utilize those exact same things? Why does something have be made different for the UK? And why do you think the UK won't be able to trade with the EU, just like a large number of other nations in the world?

Seriously, get off the high horse.

Tugg

You should probably read up on The Brussels Effect too.

That is exactly what I am saying. Why do people think the UK will be unable to trade with the EU? The world does already, The EU is a global trading partner and the EU regulations and rules influence that and many places do successful trade with the EU and yet are still sovereign nations. ANd the UK will be able to do that as well and trade with other nations just as well.

I mean if the EU can do trade with China, the biggest violator of rules and rights, then they can trade with any nation.

And I'll repeat myself again, if the UK is smart they;ll work for a USMCA-UK pact. It would be pretty smart actually.

Tugg

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

But it’s turning into a chicken-or-the-egg scenario, isn’t it. If you don’t have trade deals from the get go, imports become expensive/consumer prices go up.

To avoid that, you have to unilaterally cut tariffs and, under WTO rules, give equal tariff-free access to every WTO member.

This will then leave them wondering why they need to agree to a new trade deal - especially one requiring them to make any concessions - at all.

Not necessarily we have a number of mutual recognition agreement in place with our some important trade nations, and from memory they were going to use the current EU external tariffs rates at one point. I guess we will find out when the UK stakes it’s position at the next WTO meeting soon

ElPistolero wrote:

Remind us again - how many EU-third country trade deals were ready to be rolled over to the UK if a no deal scenario had ensued on 1 February?

Enough with our current major trading partners to get by with untill FTA’s are in place, those that declined such as Japan we have had high ministerial talks to start the process

ElPistolero wrote:

Has this happened at precious budget negotiations, or is it the first time there’s been disagreement within the EU about the budget? Don’t they eventually reach a deal? Isn’t this the nature of internal negotiations?

It’s the first time that negotiations have taken place with a glaring budget hole and no one wants to lose there previously held positions, so yes it’s significant you can gloss over it all you want but it is what it is.

ElPistolero wrote:

If you’re certain that this is it - this is the moment that Alliance unity failed and the EU is done for, I have a bridge to sell you.

Did I say it was done for? I think you know my position where the EU is headed by now.

ElPistolero wrote:

As for Verhofstadt, that tweet reads like he’s out to troll Eurosceptics. Pretty amusing use of the word “empire”, which he literally leaves in quotation marks.

It may have been a sarcastic remark in the twitter universe, but there is always an element of truth behind it when one resorts to that kind of thing when taken in context of its surrounding.

The “empire” was a direct reference to the US China it’s not the first time he has used “empire” in describing the US China and Russia for that matter. Verhofstadt is a fanatical supporter of the EU become the United States of Europe which in itself is “empire’ building

Here’s the mood in the 10th largest economy in the world:

“The Trudeau government is heeding widespread calls to apply some British stiff-upper-lip resolve to the United Kingdom’s Friday exit from the European Union.

The advice from business groups stresses that Canada should not rush to negotiate a new trade deal with Britain, and to not be in a hurry to simply incorporate a made-in-London version of Canada’s current pact with the EU.

“It’s difficult to negotiate a trade deal with the U.K. when we don’t know what the relationship with Europe will be,” [the VP of the Business Council of Canada] said. “That is their most attractive feature — that they’re part of this massive common market.”

If [a hard Brexit] comes to pass, Britain has said it would offer tariff-free access to trading partners starting for one year in 2021 to insulate the British economy from the no-deal shock.

“That changes the negotiating dynamics for Canada. If we’re getting this tariff-free access for a year, do we really want to negotiate for it?” said Mark Agnew, director of international policy for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

Jason Langrish, the executive director the Canada Europe Roundtable for Business, said: “If this doesn’t work out well for the U.K. and they crash out and have no deal effectively with the EU, and they don’t have any deals in place with anybody else, how strong of a negotiating position are they going to be in? Canada is going to have an advantage.”

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/c ... disruption

I don’t think this line of thinking is lost in any other capitals of the world, whatever public noises they might make. Everyone’s thinking the same thing. And this cold, dispassionate and rational approach is coming from a country that actually has a warm and deep relationship with the UK.

Mustn’t have got that CANZUK memo.

Tugger wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Tugger wrote:

As to other places making stuff for 65 million people versus the 450 million of the EU.... why the hell can't the UK utilize those exact same things? Why does something have be made different for the UK? And why do you think the UK won't be able to trade with the EU, just like a large number of other nations in the world?

Seriously, get off the high horse.

Tugg

You should probably read up on The Brussels Effect too.

That is exactly what I am saying. Why do people think the UK will be unable to trade with the EU? The world does already, The EU is a global trading partner and the EU regulations and rules influence that and many places do successful trade with the EU and yet are still sovereign nations. ANd the UK will be able to do that as well and trade with other nations just as well.

I mean if the EU can do trade with China, the biggest violator of rules and rights, then they can trade with any nation.

And I'll repeat myself again, if the UK is smart they;ll work for a USMCA-UK pact. It would be pretty smart actually.

Tugg

There’s a difference between trading, and getting full access while promising to diverge on regulations. The UK can continue to trade with the EU under WTO terms. What it’s extremely unlikely to walk away with is NAFTA-style deal that will incentivize factories/businesses based in the EU to move to the UK as regulations diverge. Even Mexico couldn’t hold onto that. Hence USMCA.

As for Canada and Mexico agreeing to open USMCA to the UK, can’t see that happening anytime soon. There’s no appetite for it right now. If/when those two seal separate deals with the UK, opening USMCA to the UK will become an even longer shot. At that point they’ll have access to the UK market. What benefit would they see in inviting the UK to compete with them in the US market?

A lot of these proposals don’t seem to factor in the realities of the other parties. As mentioned by one of the Canadian business groups above, the UK outside the single market is a lot less interesting than the pre-Brexit version. This view is shared around the world. Just ask the Japanese.

ElPistolero wrote:

“It’s difficult to negotiate a trade deal with the U.K. when we don’t know what the relationship with Europe will be,” [the VP of the Business Council of Canada] said. “That is their most attractive feature — that they’re part of this massive common market.”

That's true but it also means you can get more favourable trading terms if the UK relaxes standards more inline with there own compared to the EU as we know that Canada is having a hard time meeting EU needs if they make a deal before the EU, hence one of the reasons why Trump is chomping at the bit for a UK-US trade deal. If someone else gets in first there's no where for the EU to go with its LPF stance

ElPistolero wrote:

If [a hard Brexit] comes to pass, Britain has said it would offer tariff-free access to trading partners starting for one year in 2021 to insulate the British economy from the no-deal shock.

“That changes the negotiating dynamics for Canada. If we’re getting this tariff-free access for a year, do we really want to negotiate for it?” said Mark Agnew, director of international policy for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

There's been a lot of water pass under the bridge since they came out with that initially, is it still the stated policy of a Johnson Government?

AeroVega wrote:

CAP + rural development is close to half of the EU budget.

Nope. The entire budget sector which among other things contains the CAP is only a bit above a third, 39% in the current budget period.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/eu-b ... 14-2020_en

You could have looked it up on the web within a minute like I did, but instead you just pulled some made-up numbers out of... somewhere.

CAP is a handout.

Yeah, when you've repeated empty slogans often enough, they devolve into utterly meaningless phrases like that.

Rural development is temporary job creation program where the created jobs disappear as soon as the subsidy is spent.

The CAP is not a one-shot program.

What about the other half?

You mean the other 61%? (Plus, actually, the non-CAP part of the 39%!)

A good part of it goes to financing the various regulatory agencies,

Your "good part" is actually just 6% for the entire EU administrative budget which among many other things includes "regulatory agencies" too.

What you're spouting here is obviously not touched by any actual knowledge of the actual facts but exclusively driven by massively distorted propaganda.

which, like most government organizations, are unaccountable bastions of bureaucracy.

Ah, it's Bojo's and Nigel's bogeyman stories again!

In actual fact, their lies are trying to cover up the fact that it is elected politicians who are making all relevant decisions in the EU, with the execution then delegated to national or EU institutions.

But your lying politicians could not admit that, because they themselves had been involved in all those decisions and even pushed for many if not most of them (which is provably on the record!), so they lied to you that somehow all those decisions were "really" made by "unaccountable bureaucrats".

Which was just not true, but you voted for Brexit based on that lie anyway.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Fine, what exclusive products has the UK to offer the EU that nobody makes that actually has a deal with the EU or some other EU countries? Or is are UK producers of good just lower their prices to remain competitive.

Nothing to do with exclusive products, for free enterprise is all about profits margins, and what is the market prepared to pay for the product

Com'on, you perfectly know what it entitles. Nobody will pay more for ordinary products, just because it is produced in the UK. So if your prices are fixed and you add the tariffs, who will pay those, if the UK producers want to sell in the EU, exactly right, UK producers, otherwise they will lose market share. The market is not prepared to pay more, so profit margins will be less, simple economics............

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Why hasn't Johnson got any tradedeals? I thought it was easy to do?

We know that Australi, New Zealand aren't there yet, America said any UK deal will be at the end of the line. So South Korea and Japan are jumping at the opportunity? Could you please point to a source which backs-up your statement?

You know the answer to that yourself. Prior to the 31st the UK could not conduct FTA’s, it’s been 3 weeks since we can begin talks and within a 2 weeks the Foreign Secretary meet with his counterparts in a number of Asia Pacific nations to start talks for a trade deal

As to you’re statement on the US, that was under Obama and the house speaker was talking in relation to a hard border with the ROI. Trump is enthusiastic to start it’s not like we trade currently with the US with a trade deal is it, I don’t see Pelousi standing in the way unless it’s to piss Trump off.

Right, so no FTA's are concluded yet. So it is not as easy as it was presented in 2016, now is it. So global Britain is still not out there..........................

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

“It’s difficult to negotiate a trade deal with the U.K. when we don’t know what the relationship with Europe will be,” [the VP of the Business Council of Canada] said. “That is their most attractive feature — that they’re part of this massive common market.”

That's true but it also means you can get more favourable trading terms if the UK relaxes standards more inline with there own compared to the EU as we know that Canada is having a hard time meeting EU needs if they make a deal before the EU, hence one of the reasons why Trump is chomping at the bit for a UK-US trade deal. If someone else gets in first there's no where for the EU to go with its LPF stance

ElPistolero wrote:

If [a hard Brexit] comes to pass, Britain has said it would offer tariff-free access to trading partners starting for one year in 2021 to insulate the British economy from the no-deal shock.

“That changes the negotiating dynamics for Canada. If we’re getting this tariff-free access for a year, do we really want to negotiate for it?” said Mark Agnew, director of international policy for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

There's been a lot of water pass under the bridge since they came out with that initially, is it still the stated policy of a Johnson Government?

- Not really. Economies of scale mean they’ll produce to EU standards anyway, whether immediately, or down the line. They’re not going to create a separate production line for the UK. The US and the EU common market are the main markets. The UK is just an add on. Compared to the main markets (US+EU with 800 million consumers between them), the UK is not a market Canadian producers - aside from a few niche companies - are going to be focused on.

- Love him or hate him, Trump is a businessman. And he believes he is quite the negotiator. He knows where he can drive a hard bargain. His views are probably a lot more aligned with the Canadian business folk mentioned above, than you would care to admit. He knows what the balance of power is here.

- In any case, Trump’s views only count for so much. Congress is responsible for trade and has a veto. The federal system compounds that - the states/Senators have their own agendas. That trade deal isn’t going to be as easy as it’s made out to be. Canada and Mexico have strong ties and support networks at the state level - a necessity. The UK does not. That’s not going to change overnight. The US has a pretty strong protectionist streak - we all saw it during USMCA negotiations. Canada had to use every lever it had; the UK doesn’t have those levers yet.

- I suspect that zero tariff policy hasn’t changed. Or else, Canadian businesses wouldn’t be taking that position in a story published only 3 weeks ago.

Klaus wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

CAP + rural development is close to half of the EU budget.

Nope. The entire budget sector which among other things contains the CAP is only a bit above a third, 39% in the current budget period.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/eu-b ... 14-2020_en

You could have looked it up on the web within a minute like I did, but instead you just pulled some made-up numbers out of... somewhere.

What about the other half?

You mean the other 61%?

Actually, it is much worse than that.

Let's have a look at an easy graph from 2018 here:

https://www.bruegel.org/2018/02/eu-budg ... to-reform/

CAP is about 38%
Structural and Cohesion Funds is about 34%
Competitiveness for Growth and Jobs is about 13%

Total percentage of EU budget in 2018 devoted to handouts is 85%. And you wonder why the UK voted Brexit.

AeroVega wrote:

Klaus wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

CAP + rural development is close to half of the EU budget.

Nope. The entire budget sector which among other things contains the CAP is only a bit above a third, 39% in the current budget period.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/eu-b ... 14-2020_en

You could have looked it up on the web within a minute like I did, but instead you just pulled some made-up numbers out of... somewhere.

What about the other half?

You mean the other 61%?

Actually, it is much worse than that.

Let's have a look at an easy graph from 2018 here:

https://www.bruegel.org/2018/02/eu-budg ... to-reform/

CAP is about 38%
Structural and Cohesion Funds is about 34%
Competitiveness for Growth and Jobs is about 13%

Total percentage of EU budget in 2018 devoted to handouts is 85%. And you wonder why the UK voted Brexit.

Handouts??? INVESTMENTS, you mean?
What do you suggest the EU budget is being used for? Internal ADMINISTRATION?

Seriously: any government's budget which spends only 6% on its own overhead, whith the rest effectively flowing back to the people, is a pretty lean budget.

Just a question:
since taxpayers money spent by a government on its people is a wasteful hand-out, are you also suggesting that extra £350M/week promissed by BoJo for the NHS is a hand-out too? That's probably why it hasn't been put in place... no money for it because of Brexit.


BTW-
In more serious news:
it has been leaked by the Sunday Times BoJo has asked his 'taskforce Europe' to come up with plans and possibly a fabricated legal advice to “get around” the Northern Ireland protocol in the Brexit withdrawal agreement.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... KKCN20H06Y

And this man wants to sign trade deals with the EU and others?
Yet he can't even be trusted to honour a legally binding treaty he signed just a couple of months ago?
ROFTL

This man and his government are absolutely obsessed with the insane idea that they can and will have their cake and eat it too, and are willing to go above and beyond everything deemed acceptable in today'd world to prove it.... and they will fail at it.. after they will again double down...
And so slowly we're spiraling towards real hostility between people which have been living together in piece for over 70 years and which have actually no reason to end that, other than the ambition of one leader who's hellbent on showing he's the next Churchill and thus needs to fight 'the Germans' and all their 26 allies till dead.... Poor UK.
Last time Europe saw an elected leader with a strange hearcut promissing his people to rebuilt an empire unfairly held back for decades by those awkward Europeans and 'other' foreigners, who signed treaties only to disrespect them and who never wanted to compromise but always doubled down on his aims, it ended in disaster!
Boris isn't so much fighting the Germans like he thinks he is, he's well underway to copy-paste their historical mistakes!

Dutchy wrote:

Com'on, you perfectly know what it entitles. Nobody will pay more for ordinary products, just because it is produced in the UK.

No you are wrong, the market can sustain and some are prepared to pay more for things made in the UK. Some can and do just as I do. I try to do my bit at the expense of importing products from the continent, and just as I enjoy driving around the country side buy locally made produce from market gardens. To be honest my first preference is buy UK then Aussie/Kiwi where I can

Dutchy wrote:

So if your prices are fixed and you add the tariffs, who will pay those, if the UK producers want to sell in the EU, exactly right, UK producers, otherwise they will lose market share. The market is not prepared to pay more, so profit margins will be less, simple economics............

That works both ways, yes there’s a average fixed component but free enterprise should know it’s market and know its margins some can absorb the tariff and some can’t even without tariffs and with the GBD falling it’s actually cheaper for EU to buy from the UK now and now more expensive to buy from the EU to import into the UK so everything is swings and roundabouts. But it was interesting to see the GBP rose slightly with better than expected employment figures and with the Frost speech pointing towards a no deal between the EU/UK

Dutchy wrote:

Right, so no FTA's are concluded yet. So it is not as easy as it was presented in 2016, now is it.

How would you know.......Are you a UK trade negotiator?

Dutchy wrote:

So global Britain is still not out there..........................

LOL, no we aren't when we are currently still a vassal state to the EU

ElPistolero wrote:

Not really. Economies of scale mean they’ll produce to EU standards anyway, whether immediately, or down the line. They’re not going to create a separate production line for the UK. The US and the EU common market are the main markets. The UK is just an add on. Compared to the main markets (US+EU with 800 million consumers between them), the UK is not a market Canadian producers - aside from a few niche companies - are going to be focused on.

Not necessarily it depends on the product, some European petrol cars do not run so good on Australian petrol standards yes the cars are made on the same production line but they may or may not have additional components that means the cars meet EU standards or Australian standards on the same production.

Australia in terms of the global market is a drop in the ocean, Australia hasn’t adopted EU standards and trade with Europe on WTO with mini bilateral deals on the side, free enterprise has determined that the Australian market even being so small and not having the same standards as the EU is profitable enough to continue, the US on the other hand with GM have pulled out of the Australian and the RHD market globally even to the point of selling its Thailand plant to Great Wall. So while standards make it easier the export market comes down to viability and product compatibility within its market.

ElPistolero wrote:

Love him or hate him, Trump is a businessman. And he believes he is quite the negotiator. He knows where he can drive a hard bargain. His views are probably a lot more aligned with the Canadian business folk mentioned above, than you would care to admit. He knows what the balance of power is here.

I agree trump believes he is the ultimate negotiator, but it’s got nothing to do with what you think the Canadians view is right now, Trump believes he has the advantage over the EU nothing more nothing less.

ElPistolero wrote:

In any case, Trump’s views only count for so much. Congress is responsible for trade and has a veto. The federal system compounds that - the states/Senators have their own agendas. That trade deal isn’t going to be as easy as it’s made out to be. Canada and Mexico have strong ties and support networks at the state level - a necessity. The UK does not. That’s not going to change overnight. The US has a pretty strong protectionist streak - we all saw it during USMCA negotiations. Canada had to use every lever it had; the UK doesn’t have those levers yet.

In the end congress is no so different to trump, they may have different views but when it comes to jobs in individual states money talks and bullshit walks

ElPistolero wrote:

I suspect that zero tariff policy hasn’t changed. Or else, Canadian businesses wouldn’t be taking that position in a story published only 3 weeks ago.

No idea until they actually pull the lever at WTO

Dutchy wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Number6 wrote:

That is not true. The number of MEP‘s has been reduced from 751 to just 705

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/ ... ns-in-2019

I stand corrected.

Still, the EU decided to reallocate 27 of the 73 UK seats. That's 27 more MEPs and staff to pay after one of the largest net contributors has left the club. Like the Strasbourg circus, such acts are highly visible symbols of waste that make EU citizens despise the EU.

About 6% of the EU budget is allocated to administration (which includes elected officials). You are right, it is symbols, nothing coming close to something substantial. Why even talk about this?

Just ignore and feel sorry for him. He’s just another victim of fake news and brain washing.....

sabenapilot wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Nope. The entire budget sector which among other things contains the CAP is only a bit above a third, 39% in the current budget period.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/eu-b ... 14-2020_en

You could have looked it up on the web within a minute like I did, but instead you just pulled some made-up numbers out of... somewhere.


You mean the other 61%?

Actually, it is much worse than that.

Let's have a look at an easy graph from 2018 here:

https://www.bruegel.org/2018/02/eu-budg ... to-reform/

CAP is about 38%
Structural and Cohesion Funds is about 34%
Competitiveness for Growth and Jobs is about 13%

Total percentage of EU budget in 2018 devoted to handouts is 85%. And you wonder why the UK voted Brexit.

Handouts??? INVESTMENTS, you mean?
What do you suggest the EU budget is being used for? Internal ADMINISTRATION?

Seriously: any government's budget which spends only 6% on its own overhead, whith the rest effectively flowing back to the people, is a pretty lean budget.

Just a question:
since taxpayers money spent by a government on its people is a wasteful hand-out, are you also suggesting that extra £350M/week promissed by BoJo for the NHS is a hand-out too? That's probably why it hasn't been put in place... no money for it because of Brexit.


BTW-
In more serious news:
it has been leaked by the Sunday Times BoJo has asked his 'taskforce Europe' to come up with plans and possibly a fabricated legal advice to “get around” the Northern Ireland protocol in the Brexit withdrawal agreement.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... KKCN20H06Y

And this man wants to sign trade deals with the EU and others?
Yet he can't even be trusted to honour a legally binding treaty he signed just a couple of months ago?
ROFTL

This man and his government are absolutely obsessed with the insane idea that they can and will have their cake and eat it too, and are willing to go above and beyond everything deemed acceptable in today'd world to prove it.... and they will fail at it.. after they will again double down...
And so slowly we're spiraling towards real hostility between people which have been living together in piece for over 70 years and which have actually no reason to end that, other than the ambition of one leader who's hellbent on showing he's the next Churchill and thus needs to fight 'the Germans' and all their 26 allies till dead.... Poor UK.
Last time Europe saw an elected leader with a strange hearcut promissing his people to rebuilt an empire unfairly held back for decades by those awkward Europeans and 'other' foreigners, who signed treaties only to disrespect them and who never wanted to compromise but always doubled down on his aims, it ended in disaster!
Boris isn't so much fighting the Germans like he thinks he is, he's well underway to copy-paste their historical mistakes!

Godwin’s law strikes again

A101 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Actually, it is much worse than that.

Let's have a look at an easy graph from 2018 here:

https://www.bruegel.org/2018/02/eu-budg ... to-reform/

CAP is about 38%
Structural and Cohesion Funds is about 34%
Competitiveness for Growth and Jobs is about 13%

Total percentage of EU budget in 2018 devoted to handouts is 85%. And you wonder why the UK voted Brexit.

Handouts??? INVESTMENTS, you mean?
What do you suggest the EU budget is being used for? Internal ADMINISTRATION?

Seriously: any government's budget which spends only 6% on its own overhead, whith the rest effectively flowing back to the people, is a pretty lean budget.

Just a question:
since taxpayers money spent by a government on its people is a wasteful hand-out, are you also suggesting that extra £350M/week promissed by BoJo for the NHS is a hand-out too? That's probably why it hasn't been put in place... no money for it because of Brexit.


BTW-
In more serious news:
it has been leaked by the Sunday Times BoJo has asked his 'taskforce Europe' to come up with plans and possibly a fabricated legal advice to “get around” the Northern Ireland protocol in the Brexit withdrawal agreement.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... KKCN20H06Y

And this man wants to sign trade deals with the EU and others?
Yet he can't even be trusted to honour a legally binding treaty he signed just a couple of months ago?
ROFTL

This man and his government are absolutely obsessed with the insane idea that they can and will have their cake and eat it too, and are willing to go above and beyond everything deemed acceptable in today'd world to prove it.... and they will fail at it.. after they will again double down...
And so slowly we're spiraling towards real hostility between people which have been living together in piece for over 70 years and which have actually no reason to end that, other than the ambition of one leader who's hellbent on showing he's the next Churchill and thus needs to fight 'the Germans' and all their 26 allies till dead.... Poor UK.
Last time Europe saw an elected leader with a strange hearcut promissing his people to rebuilt an empire unfairly held back for decades by those awkward Europeans and 'other' foreigners, who signed treaties only to disrespect them and who never wanted to compromise but always doubled down on his aims, it ended in disaster!
Boris isn't so much fighting the Germans like he thinks he is, he's well underway to copy-paste their historical mistakes!

Godwin’s law strikes again

Can you seriously not see (or purposely ignore) the parallels?

Ok then. Have fun with your sovereignty, expel the undesirables out, blame the external enemy and see where it takes you. They'll make the trains run on time at the very least.

A101 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Actually, it is much worse than that.

Let's have a look at an easy graph from 2018 here:

https://www.bruegel.org/2018/02/eu-budg ... to-reform/

CAP is about 38%
Structural and Cohesion Funds is about 34%
Competitiveness for Growth and Jobs is about 13%

Total percentage of EU budget in 2018 devoted to handouts is 85%. And you wonder why the UK voted Brexit.

Handouts??? INVESTMENTS, you mean?
What do you suggest the EU budget is being used for? Internal ADMINISTRATION?

Seriously: any government's budget which spends only 6% on its own overhead, whith the rest effectively flowing back to the people, is a pretty lean budget.

Just a question:
since taxpayers money spent by a government on its people is a wasteful hand-out, are you also suggesting that extra £350M/week promissed by BoJo for the NHS is a hand-out too? That's probably why it hasn't been put in place... no money for it because of Brexit.


BTW-
In more serious news:
it has been leaked by the Sunday Times BoJo has asked his 'taskforce Europe' to come up with plans and possibly a fabricated legal advice to “get around” the Northern Ireland protocol in the Brexit withdrawal agreement.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... KKCN20H06Y

And this man wants to sign trade deals with the EU and others?
Yet he can't even be trusted to honour a legally binding treaty he signed just a couple of months ago?
ROFTL

This man and his government are absolutely obsessed with the insane idea that they can and will have their cake and eat it too, and are willing to go above and beyond everything deemed acceptable in today'd world to prove it.... and they will fail at it.. after they will again double down...
And so slowly we're spiraling towards real hostility between people which have been living together in piece for over 70 years and which have actually no reason to end that, other than the ambition of one leader who's hellbent on showing he's the next Churchill and thus needs to fight 'the Germans' and all their 26 allies till dead.... Poor UK.
Last time Europe saw an elected leader with a strange hearcut promissing his people to rebuilt an empire unfairly held back for decades by those awkward Europeans and 'other' foreigners, who signed treaties only to disrespect them and who never wanted to compromise but always doubled down on his aims, it ended in disaster!
Boris isn't so much fighting the Germans like he thinks he is, he's well underway to copy-paste their historical mistakes!

Godwin’s law strikes again

So what? The UK is becoming more and more an enemy of continental Europe. L’histoire se répète...

sabenapilot wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Nope. The entire budget sector which among other things contains the CAP is only a bit above a third, 39% in the current budget period.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/eu-b ... 14-2020_en

You could have looked it up on the web within a minute like I did, but instead you just pulled some made-up numbers out of... somewhere.


You mean the other 61%?

Actually, it is much worse than that.

Let's have a look at an easy graph from 2018 here:

https://www.bruegel.org/2018/02/eu-budg ... to-reform/

CAP is about 38%
Structural and Cohesion Funds is about 34%
Competitiveness for Growth and Jobs is about 13%

Total percentage of EU budget in 2018 devoted to handouts is 85%. And you wonder why the UK voted Brexit.

Handouts??? INVESTMENTS, you mean?

CAP is a pure handout, plain and simple.

Can you show me a concrete Return on Investment of the other 47%? I cannot think of anything significant.

Investment - RoI = handout

marcelh wrote:

Just ignore and feel sorry for him. He’s just another victim of fake news and brain washing.....

Why feel sorry for me? You should feel sorry for the EU for having lost the UK.

Lol, sorry for what? For the loss of a country that tried for 40 years to derail the EU ? It is a liberation for us.

AeroVega wrote:

CAP is a pure handout, plain and simple.

Can you show me a concrete Return on Investment of the other 47%? I cannot think of anything significant.

Investment - RoI = handout

Without CAP Europe's primary sector would look very different from what it is now. At world prices, most extensive crops would have to be abandoned and with them the livelihood of millions of families. Milk would also be severely disrupted though meat apparently would cope better.

I for one don't mind paying a little extra for bread or milk or fruit so that a good part of the benefit stays around. Most countries have similar protective schemes (just look at Trump's bailout of farmers)

It's very complicated to get RoI on such a complex network of economic activity, taxpayer levels and so on but even if it were negative I'm pretty sure the different farmer lobbies in each country would succeed in having the laws passed.

It's not perfect by any means, and it probably favours large landowners too much, but the effect is still there.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Com'on, you perfectly know what it entitles. Nobody will pay more for ordinary products, just because it is produced in the UK.

No you are wrong, the market can sustain and some are prepared to pay more for things made in the UK. Some can and do just as I do. I try to do my bit at the expense of importing products from the continent, and just as I enjoy driving around the country side buy locally made produce from market gardens. To be honest my first preference is buy UK then Aussie/Kiwi where I can

Fine, you are willing to pay more, but generally it is not the case. Because you would have to ask yourself, if you are so nationalistic that you want to buy locally, or your second home land. Australia or third New Zealand, then someone on the continent would feel the same, right. So that kind of evens out. If the UK brand would be so good, that people are willing to pay a premium on that, so accept a higher price for the same quality or even elss quality only because it was made in the UK, then all the producers would have factore it in already, no wouldn't they.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So if your prices are fixed and you add the tariffs, who will pay those, if the UK producers want to sell in the EU, exactly right, UK producers, otherwise they will lose market share. The market is not prepared to pay more, so profit margins will be less, simple economics............

That works both ways, yes there’s a average fixed component but free enterprise should know it’s market and know its margins some can absorb the tariff and some can’t even without tariffs and with the GBD falling it’s actually cheaper for EU to buy from the UK now and now more expensive to buy from the EU to import into the UK so everything is swings and roundabouts. But it was interesting to see the GBP rose slightly with better than expected employment figures and with the Frost speech pointing towards a no deal between the EU/UK

So you agree, that tarrifs will need to be absorebed by the British, good.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Right, so no FTA's are concluded yet. So it is not as easy as it was presented in 2016, now is it.

How would you know.......Are you a UK trade negotiator?

Johnson said they would have been tradedeals lined up at the moment you guys left the EU, now you have left and there is very little evidence of it, actually to the conterary. Perfectly logical, the UK has nothing, no trade deals and has to start fresh, all the others can just relex and make a very good trade deal for them. The UK has put herself in. a vonerable position and all negotiators know this perfectly well.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So global Britain is still not out there..........................

LOL, no we aren't when we are currently still a vassal state to the EU

Not just that, man, not just that. You are still believing in that the promised unicorns will finally come. Till then, you continue to blame the EU, I guess.

AeroVega wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Just ignore and feel sorry for him. He’s just another victim of fake news and brain washing.....

Why feel sorry for me? You should feel sorry for the EU for having lost the UK.

Why? The EU didn’t lose the UK, they wanted to leave to take back control. I’m fine with that, we will see how much control they actually will take back. I’m glad to see the an independent UK comply to the EU rules and regulations, without the troubles to negotiate it with them. And they are going to pay also some 40B Euro. For the EU, the UK is becoming some “friends” with benefits.

AeroVega wrote:

CAP is a pure handout, plain and simple.
Can you show me a concrete Return on Investment of the other 47%? I cannot think of anything significant.
Investment - RoI = handout

Can you show me a concrete ROI calculation on any recent Brexiteer investment plans?
Let's take the most visible one, investment into NHS. What is the ROI for whatever was the sum of money proposed by BoJo to invest more into into NHS?
Or bridge between Scotland and Ireland. ROI for that?
OR what about ROI numbers for any other part of the 80 billion that he wants to increase spending?
What is the ROI on military spending in any country?

The most important question. What is the ROI of brexiting?

AeroVega wrote:

Total percentage of EU budget in 2018 devoted to handouts is 85%. And you wonder why the UK voted Brexit.

Based on the same logic the total percentage of UK government budget devoted to handouts is 100% unless you can show ROI numbers for anything.
If UK voted for brexit because of this kind of thinking the logic is pretty unclear.
Sounds like somebody has not been understanding realities of things.

Back to reality:
I think the job of governments everywhere is to organize stuff which is absolutely necessary or gives great benefits to nation as a whole but which do not provide a clear ROI for any one specific entity that could pocket the ROI money. If there is a project where ROI is clear that project should not be done by government but private sector instead. So in my opinion the situation that 100% of government budget is such that clear ROI cannot be calculated is perfectly fine and normal and good. If it is any less than 100% that is a reason to start thinking whether there is something wrong and could be improved by reducing government to get out from business that does not belong to the government and so get back to the 100% which is a good percentage.

A101 wrote:

Not necessarily it depends on the product, some European petrol cars do not run so good on Australian petrol standards yes the cars are made on the same production line but they may or may not have additional components that means the cars meet EU standards or Australian standards on the same production.

Australia in terms of the global market is a drop in the ocean, Australia hasn’t adopted EU standards and trade with Europe on WTO with mini bilateral deals on the side, free enterprise has determined that the Australian market even being so small and not having the same standards as the EU is profitable enough to continue, the US on the other hand with GM have pulled out of the Australian and the RHD market globally even to the point of selling its Thailand plant to Great Wall. So while standards make it easier the export market comes down to viability and product compatibility within its market.

Don’t know much about the Australian auto market, but google indicates that Australia has already adopted Euro 5 standards, and intends to adopt Euro 6 standards by 2027. Not exactly consistent with your narrative.

Anyway, doesn’t really detract from the so-called “Brussels Effect”, as outlined in the Wall Street Journal:

“Global companies often voluntarily standardize their operations around the most stringent regulatory standard out there—frequently the EU standard—since complying with that standard will typically ensure access to all markets. Economies of scale and other benefits of uniform production make it unlikely that these firms would set up two production lines, one for the EU and another for the rest of the world.”

In short, the vast majority of Canadian exporters will simply adopt EU or US standards, whichever is higher, and sell those in the UK. UK exporters will do the same thing. It’s common practice - just look at the packaging of most electronic products.

A101 wrote:

I agree trump believes he is the ultimate negotiator, but it’s got nothing to do with what you think the Canadians view is right now, Trump believes he has the advantage over the EU nothing more nothing less.

Even the Canadians, who’re looking up the GDP table, can see who holds an advantage if the EU-UK talks go sideways. If you want to believe this is lost on the US, which is looking down the GDP table, then that bridge is still available.

At some point, you’re going to have to move away from the sound bites. California on its own has a larger economy than the UK. This is a country that walked away from a Trans-Pacific deal that was more lucrative than anything the UK can offer in terms of jobs or money. They’re going to play the same type of hardball as the EU. Especially the US states with agricultural priorities. Sooner or later, they’re going to demand that your standards don’t exceed theirs. In fact, it’s already happening on the meat front. How’s that going to play with UK farmers and regulatory soveriegnists? Doesn’t look great, does it?

A101 wrote:

No idea until they actually pull the lever at WTO

Agreed. But, at the very least,we know what outcome all those countries that haven’t rolled over their EU trade deals are betting on.

Ertro wrote:

The most important question. What is the ROI of brexiting?

170billion and counting.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... or-the-u-k

That's about 20 times the UK last full year net contribution.

JJJ wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

CAP is a pure handout, plain and simple.

Can you show me a concrete Return on Investment of the other 47%? I cannot think of anything significant.

Investment - RoI = handout

Without CAP Europe's primary sector would look very different from what it is now. At world prices, most extensive crops would have to be abandoned and with them the livelihood of millions of families. Milk would also be severely disrupted though meat apparently would cope better.

I for one don't mind paying a little extra for bread or milk or fruit so that a good part of the benefit stays around. Most countries have similar protective schemes (just look at Trump's bailout of farmers)

It's very complicated to get RoI on such a complex network of economic activity, taxpayer levels and so on but even if it were negative I'm pretty sure the different farmer lobbies in each country would succeed in having the laws passed.

It's not perfect by any means, and it probably favours large landowners too much, but the effect is still there.

CAP is a disaster. It subsidizes overproduction and directly contributes to over-pollution of the environment. Yet some of our Dutch members cannot come to criticize it, even though in their country, almost no new houses are allowed to be built because most of the the nitrogen budget has been consumed by agriculture.

AeroVega wrote:

JJJ wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

CAP is a pure handout, plain and simple.

Can you show me a concrete Return on Investment of the other 47%? I cannot think of anything significant.

Investment - RoI = handout

Without CAP Europe's primary sector would look very different from what it is now. At world prices, most extensive crops would have to be abandoned and with them the livelihood of millions of families. Milk would also be severely disrupted though meat apparently would cope better.

I for one don't mind paying a little extra for bread or milk or fruit so that a good part of the benefit stays around. Most countries have similar protective schemes (just look at Trump's bailout of farmers)

It's very complicated to get RoI on such a complex network of economic activity, taxpayer levels and so on but even if it were negative I'm pretty sure the different farmer lobbies in each country would succeed in having the laws passed.

It's not perfect by any means, and it probably favours large landowners too much, but the effect is still there.

CAP is a disaster. It subsidizes overproduction and directly contributes to over-pollution of the environment.

It's been discussed several times to tie it more to crop surface but then farmers (mostly Dutch, known for high yields) complained that it would reward "inefficient" methods.

At least France is leading the way forbidding heated greenhouse produce from being labeled as bio, eco-friendly, etc.

No single solution is going to keep everyone happy and on such a big system there are going to be cracks somewhere.

AeroVega wrote:

The EU could have avoided Brexit if it had reflected on its wasteful nature and done something about it, such as ending the travelling circus to Strasbourg.

Seems that the UK government is also starting a travelling circus. Not with its parliament but by moving part of the Treasury to Northern UK. Good to see it's not only the EU who wastes money. I wonder what the civil servants think about this idea.....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/23/chancellor-will-send-treasury-staff-to-the-north-of-england

AeroVega wrote:

Yet some of our Dutch members cannot come to criticize it, even though in their country, almost no new houses are allowed to be built because most of the the nitrogen budget has been consumed by agriculture.

Only the Dutch farmers support CAP, the majority of the Dutch wouldn't care if some farmers loose their livelihood. However, just like in most EU countries, farmers have political power, hence why some of the farmers can still have those "factories" poluting the country. Then again, UK farming is inefficient and fears losing the money it currently gets (looks as if the UK farmers are weak compared to their European counterparts).

Dutchy wrote:

Fine, you are willing to pay more, but generally it is not the case.

Yep that’s certainly the case, somethings are more expensive some are not, one only has to look at NZ lamb not so long ago was actually cheaper to buy than local lamb and also across from the continent. But due to the falling pound that trend has reversed

Dutchy wrote:

Because you would have to ask yourself, if you are so nationalistic that you want to buy locally, or your second home land. Australia or third New Zealand, then someone on the continent would feel the same, right. So that kind of evens out.

Nothing wrong with supporting local industry where you can. It has effect on the pet EU project for climate action, the less goods shipped OS the better right for climate action

Dutchy wrote:

If the UK brand would be so good, that people are willing to pay a premium on that, so accept a higher price for the same quality or even elss quality only because it was made in the UK,

It currently has to meet the same standards or higher than those that’s due to vassalage.

Dutchy wrote:

then all the producers would have factore it in already, no wouldn't they.

It currently has to meet the same standards or higher than those that’s due to vassalage.

Dutchy wrote:

So you agree, that tarrifs will need to be absorebed by the British, good.

That’s a simple case of economics, industry will either absorb the cost or it won’t, consumers will either accept the increase or it won’t and that goes for goods sent to the EU the market will dictate what the market will bare unless it is a commodity you cannot do without

Dutchy wrote:

Johnson said they would have been tradedeals lined up at the moment you guys left the EU

If you can find a statement to that effect I’d be very happy to see it. If you are talking about Free Trade Deals, but I think he may be referring to the Mutual Recognition Agreements. Because I’m quite sure that if the UK attempted to do there own trade deals whilst still part of the EU we would have been taken to the ECJ

ElPistolero wrote:

Don’t know much about the Australian auto market, but google indicates that Australia has already adopted Euro 5 standards, and intends to adopt Euro 6 standards by 2027. Not exactly consistent with your narrative.

Well actually there is a push back in Australia because the Euro 5 standards is in relation to diesel vehicles and what they are finding is that with all the extra emissions requirements are having an effect on reliability under Australia harsh conditions, I know that as fact because I have talked to a number of operators in Australia as smaller operators are keeping there older trucks because it actually cheaper to rebuild the older engines pre standards than the new. Off course multi-nationals are buying new because the have bigger tax incentives to turn there vehicles over at the end of the warranty period.

ElPistolero wrote:

Global companies often voluntarily standardize their operations around the most stringent regulatory standard out there—frequently the EU standard—since complying with that standard will typically ensure access to all markets. Economies of scale and other benefits of uniform production make it unlikely that these firms would set up two production lines, one for the EU and another for the rest of the world.”

That’s a commercial decision up to the vendor, but it still has to meet the national standards to where they want to export to. There are a lot of vehicle combinations not available to Australians because of this very fact because those vehicles will run into reliability problems because of Australian fuel standards if there is a perception on reliability that effects consumer confidence in the product which in turn reduces market share overall.

ElPistolero wrote:

Even the Canadians, who’re looking up the GDP table, can see who holds an advantage if the EU-UK talks go sideways. If you want to believe this is lost on the US, which is looking down the GDP table, then that bridge is still available.

Unless a miracle happens UK/EU talks are doomed from the start, US administration has different attitude towards the UK than Canada each trade deal has there own unique circumstances. Trump is very anti EU and that is going to reflect in negotiations with the UK

ElPistolero wrote:

At some point, you’re going to have to move away from the sound bites. California on its own has a larger economy than the UK. This is a country that walked away from a Trans-Pacific deal that was more lucrative than anything the UK can offer in terms of jobs or money. They’re going to play the same type of hardball as the EU. Especially the US states with agricultural priorities. Sooner or later, they’re going to demand that your standards don’t exceed theirs. In fact, it’s already happening on the meat front. How’s that going to play with UK farmers and regulatory soveriegnists? Doesn’t look great, does it?

Well if that happens then it actually opens up more markets at a lower price point for premium agriculture production to the US than EU. If the Australian/New Zealand farms can reform and adapt to new trade movements I’m sure the UK as well. There always winners and losers in every FTA around the world.


At the end of the day we are never going to agree on merits Brexit, but it’s good that we are talking about it

LJ wrote:

Seems that the UK government is also starting a travelling circus. Not with its parliament but by moving part of the Treasury to Northern UK. Good to see it's not only the EU who wastes money. I wonder what the civil servants think about this idea.....

That’s actually not so unique moving Government departments functions to another area can be for a variety of reason.it’s a form of pork barreling and also can help the local economy.

But it’s a very different kettle of fish just moving where Parliament sits to do the basically do the same thing in 2 different locations. Least with treasury moving it’s for the duration the whole kit and kaboodle dosnt move just to sit in different parliamentary functions

LJ wrote:

Only the Dutch farmers support CAP, the majority of the Dutch wouldn't care if some farmers loose their livelihood. However, just like in most EU countries, farmers have political power, hence why some of the farmers can still have those "factories" poluting the country. Then again, UK farming is inefficient and fears losing the money it currently gets (looks as if the UK farmers are weak compared to their European counterparts).

In reality it’s probably the reforms that UK agriculture needs to break the cycle of subsidies just like NZ did to become more efficient and sustainable

Dutchy wrote:

Not just that, man, not just that. You are still believing in that the promised unicorns will finally come. Till then, you continue to blame the EU, I guess.

Oh forget the rebuttal to this from you,

It’s time to get off the merry go round of persistently saying I blame the EU for all problems in the UK

But please do show where I have blamed the EU on Brexit please

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Fine, you are willing to pay more, but generally it is not the case.

Yep that’s certainly the case, somethings are more expensive some are not, one only has to look at NZ lamb not so long ago was actually cheaper to buy than local lamb and also across from the continent. But due to the falling pound that trend has reversed

Dutchy wrote:

Because you would have to ask yourself, if you are so nationalistic that you want to buy locally, or your second home land. Australia or third New Zealand, then someone on the continent would feel the same, right. So that kind of evens out.

Nothing wrong with supporting local industry where you can. It has effect on the pet EU project for climate action, the less goods shipped OS the better right for climate action

Dutchy wrote:

If the UK brand would be so good, that people are willing to pay a premium on that, so accept a higher price for the same quality or even elss quality only because it was made in the UK,

It currently has to meet the same standards or higher than those that’s due to vassalage.

Dutchy wrote:

then all the producers would have factore it in already, no wouldn't they.

It currently has to meet the same standards or higher than those that’s due to vassalage.

Dutchy wrote:

So you agree, that tarrifs will need to be absorebed by the British, good.

That’s a simple case of economics, industry will either absorb the cost or it won’t, consumers will either accept the increase or it won’t and that goes for goods sent to the EU the market will dictate what the market will bare unless it is a commodity you cannot do without

Dutchy wrote:

Johnson said they would have been tradedeals lined up at the moment you guys left the EU

If you can find a statement to that effect I’d be very happy to see it. If you are talking about Free Trade Deals, but I think he may be referring to the Mutual Recognition Agreements. Because I’m quite sure that if the UK attempted to do there own trade deals whilst still part of the EU we would have been taken to the ECJ

Ok, we have established that products out of the UK doesn't comment a premium for the average Joe. So it will put the UK at a disadvantage. And we have established that you want the UK to lower its standards (quality?, labor rights?) in order to remain competitive.

As regards of the Trade deals, we'll see if they are as easy as the Brexit leute has made it seems. So your new deadline is 31rd of December, then we can see all these great trade deals of the UK and we can see at last see this global Britain.