A101 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

A101 wrote:

Been their done that in the now closed thread can't be stuffed looking for it. but you can you like

That’s a no then.

Thanks.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did I say no I can't

It's on the forum for you to see

Uh huh, cool story. Which reply was that in because I did’t see them there.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aesma wrote:

From what I've heard about universal credit, it's already some kind of dystopian nightmare, so making it worse... But of course the people it will impact aren't voting, mostly.

edit : also apparently the energy thing has been cut, it's guaranteed only up to next April.

Dystopian nightmare??

My now ex stepdaughter left university in 2019 with a barely a pass in Art and Media studies, and went straight to the job centre to sign on for Universal credit.

She gets around £400 a month for doing sweet FA She signed the contract that she will actively seek work, but doesn't and spends most of the time either on TikTok or slobbing around and made no contribution towards the running of the house.

bennett123 wrote:

Not sure what these 'non economic' benefits of BREXIT were.

Also unclear which things have been done which could not have been done within the EU.

I'm curious too as to learn what non-economic benefits Brexit has brought the UK so far?

If the mythical free hand (aka full sovereignty) allowing for Trussonimics is to go by, than it isn't such of a benefit at all, as demonstrated by the fiscal crash that followed in fast forward and it the very reason this horrendous mini-budget is now needed!

From the Select Committee, overseas factors, plus of course one nation that achieved a first, to impose economic sanctions on itself;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LENZxf4NLR4

bennett123 wrote:

Not sure what these 'non economic' benefits of BREXIT were.

Also unclear which things have been done which could not have been done within the EU.

Well, there's "taking back control", "blue passports" and "rushed trade deals that are worse than what we had before". I'm sure there must be more.

Having insufficient crop-pickers and truck drivers couldn't have been done within the EU.

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Nope, the referenda were binary decision in that it was in or out and the result carried, It’s no different in a double majority if the result is close or not one side gets the result the other doesn’t even if won by a single vote.
Cameron told us that the result will be acted upon under the terms of A50
No, it’s not up to those who vote to leave to do anything. It’s the job of government to know use those new freedoms in the UK best interests with good policy. As I have said before in the old threads yes, they will make mistakes you learn from them and try something different. There are lots of independent nations doing alright and not part of the EU organisation.

I don’t really understand what you’re trying to sag here, but by your own logic, there is no reason remainers should build any bridges either. Soo… continue with deep divisions? I can’t see how that can be good for any country, but your mileage may vary.
The other countries are doing fine because they didn’t increase and then cut trade with their biggest trading partner on a whim.

We are not the ones whining because we left and continuing the fight to re-join

ElPistolero wrote:

The other countries are doing fine because they didn’t increase and then cut trade with their biggest trading partner on a whim.

China’s economic sanctions has made Australia more confident, there are lessons there for the UK

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Who cares what the polls are saying the only vote that mattered was at the referenda. Both mainstream political parties have said no to re-joining the EU and we have to move forward and do what’s best for the UK. And as I said different people have different ideas on how that happens

One of those political parties also put out a mini budget that it flip-flopped on pretty quickly. Nothing is permanent.

True I highlighted that when things go wrong change course bit over dramatic of what happened but that’s life

ElPistolero wrote:

Certainly looks like the tide is turning. Only a matter of time before the UK aligns closer and closer and joins the SM/CU, even if it never fully joins the EU. Think that’s becoming clearer by the day.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I think the political hurdles are greater than you think to do that.
Just my opinion

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Trade was always expected to be lower and that was acknowledged in the referenda campaign. Coming out trade returned to pre Brexit levels obviously with the new economic trading conditions that will go up and down
UK exports to EU ‘return to pre-Brexit levels

Rebounded to the same level? Sure. Rebounded at the same rate as the rest of the world? No. In fact, the damage to UK exports is becoming more and more apparent.

You were only comparing to pre-Brexit and we meet that benchmark

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

And it’s all based on assumptions because there is no way to say for fact that we would have been better off. That is the point of context after all Germany recovered in a better position than the UK after 2008 the financial crisis who’s to say it would not happen again hence why they are only assuming that the UK may or may not have fared better

Indeed. Notwithstanding that those same assumptions also informed the markets’ stance on the mini-Budget, and resulted in a PM being ousted.
Very powerful assumptions, those.

Indeed hence why they are still assumption if it followed 2008 we were never going to have the higher recovery terms would we since as you said the market followed the 2008 assumptions

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Hence the reason for leaving was not just economic

Perhaps not, but they’re contributing enough to the economic pain to make people change their mind.

As I said who care, its not changing the result

ElPistolero wrote:

Clocks ticking. SM and CU seem to be getting closer by the day. Worst nightmare territory for Brexiteers, I would imagine.

Nope, if it happens it happens then the party will face the electorate see what happens then they will either lose or win. But its always going to be a gamble to who ever does it
It will most likely be under Starmer gives a lot of ammunition to the Conservatives in the following election cycle, because he didn’t think he could make it work with the EU holding his hand

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Your continued reference to some imaginary blaming for the economy is just laughable. I have never blamed Brexit for the economy
How is Brexit indefensible?

How is the economic pain Brexit is inflicting defensible?

I told you Brexit is just not economic remain/re-join only have the one argument. And if it came to a vote again tomorrow id vote leave again

ElPistolero wrote:

The Pound is back at 1.19, which is where it was pre-budget. That was a very short blip.
FTSE is higher than it was pre-Budget, so not sure what you’re getting at there either.
The rest seem to be articles put forth by think tanks. Think tanks =/= markets. Markets have money. They can dictate gilt rates and exchange rates. Think tanks…can’t.

Still shows that that the market don’t 100% agree with Hunts policy didn’t it the £ also rallied under truss, that’s is the point

ElPistolero wrote:

As an aside, one of your articles this quote, which I note you didn’t include:
“So far the missing word from this autumn statement is ‘sorry’. Yes inflation, energy costs & recession are global problems but decisions taken in no 10 - Trussonomics, Brexit, legacy of austerity - have made their impact here worse”

That’s an opinion within the article just like there earlier assumptions

ElPistolero wrote:

Brexit: it’s everywhere.

LOL you make it sound like its is a living organism something from the little house of horrors

In a rather roundabout way, we seem to be agreeing that the UK is, in fact, worse of because of Brexit because:

- 6 years later, societal divisions aren’t just persisting; the basic assumption is that they’re dictating positions (“pro-remain Chancellor”). Accusing the other side of being traitors or cowards (“surrender”) doesn’t strike me as being. very healthy for any country. But it’s evidently going nowhere.

- the UK’s trade is, in fact, a mess. Brexiteers are now criticizing the only new deal that the UK’s managed to sign because of the concessions the UK had to make (in keeping with the UK’s weakened position that many of us predicted here years ago):

“ "The first step is to recognise that the Australia trade deal is not actually a very good deal for the UK, which was not for lack of trying on my part."

Overall, the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.

We did not actually need to give Australia nor New Zealand full liberalisation of beef and sheep. It was not in our economic interests to do so. And neither Australia nor New Zealand had anything to offer in return for such a grand concession.“

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/george-e ... s-12747723

- leavers evidently think the onus is on remainers to accept the economic damage inflicted on them by Brexit, and to mend bridges. The likelihood of that happening during a cost of living is around zero. The only answer leavers seem to have to that is … well.. something along the lines of “thoughts and prayers”.

- Starmer and Labour look set to align UK standards with EU standards, effectively giving up the “sovereignty”. Hunt is hinting at the same thing. No plan to return to the SM/CU (for now, anyway), but the barriers will go away on their own. No points for deducing that the only way to do that is through regulatory alignment.

https://www.euronews.com/amp/2022/11/18 ... gle-market

- Things have gone silent on the NIP front, no? Quite a bit of drama on that front this summer. Wonder what’s going on there. Nothing regulatory alignment can’t fix, I would imagine.

And for what it’s worth, even if we agree that literally everything is an assumption or opinion, it’s hard to escape the fact that the international “assumptions” and “opinions”, particularly among money managers, are remarkably negative about post-Brexit UK. It can’t even muster up anything positive on that front.

sabenapilot wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Not sure what these 'non economic' benefits of BREXIT were.

Also unclear which things have been done which could not have been done within the EU.

I'm curious too as to learn what non-economic benefits Brexit has brought the UK so far?

If the mythical free hand (aka full sovereignty) allowing for Trussonimics is to go by, than it isn't such of a benefit at all, as demonstrated by the fiscal crash that followed in fast forward and it the very reason this horrendous mini-budget is now needed!

It’s separated the traitors (aka remainers) from the believers. From a leave perspective, that probably counts for something in terms of “non-economic” benefits. They now know the enemy within. We can debate whether that’s healthy for any country, but it seems to be a favoured tactic among leavers. They’re even talking about remainer “coups” these days.

The inimitable Andrew Neil has weighed in with a rip roaring piece on the Budget. And Brexit.

Some interesting stuff in there, but this caught my eye:

“I'm told that when asked by a colleague why he was a Brexiteer (just after then Prime Minister David Cameron told him it would end his career) he replied that it would put a stop to anyone questioning his Britishness — though on what grounds anyone could sensibly do that is a mystery.

But it suggests that his support for Brexit was pragmatic, calculating even, rather than the stance of a true believer, lukewarm rather than committed. So perhaps the death of Brexit doesn't cause him much concern.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... -dead.html

ElPistolero wrote:

In a rather roundabout way, we seem to be agreeing that the UK is, in fact, worse of because of Brexit because:

Hardly No we are not

ElPistolero wrote:

6 years later, societal divisions aren’t just persisting; the basic assumption is that they’re dictating positions (“pro-remain Chancellor”). Accusing the other side of being traitors or cowards (“surrender”) doesn’t strike me as being. very healthy for any country. But it’s evidently going nowhere.

No, you are being obtuse, it’s a fact that Hunt is pro remain and has never changed his position on the UK remaining in the EU.

There were a number of people on the forum hoping Truss would fail even before she had taken up the mantle and were more than happy when she fell on her sword, the froth at the mouth talk from pro remain/re-join because she dared to do something different but when one of your own becomes Chancellor and moves the UK back in austerity budget you people still complain. Brexit didn’t cause Covid or cause Putin to invade the Ukraine or high inflation or the BOE to react to slow to the changing economic circumstance and Brexit didn’t do anything of that what we are seeing in the budget which are policy driven is events to help ward of recessionary pressure something all nations are doing across the globe in their own way

ElPistolero wrote:

the UK’s trade is, in fact, a mess. Brexiteers are now criticizing the only new deal that the UK’s managed to sign because of the concessions the UK had to make (in keeping with the UK’s weakened position that many of us predicted here years ago):
“ "The first step is to recognise that the Australia trade deal is not actually a very good deal for the UK, which was not for lack of trying on my part."
Overall, the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.
We did not actually need to give Australia nor New Zealand full liberalisation of beef and sheep. It was not in our economic interests to do so. And neither Australia nor New Zealand had anything to offer in return for such a grand concession.“
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/george-e ... s-12747723

Seems you are just a parrot, and George Eustice knows full well we did not give” full liberalisation of beef and sheep” only “new trade deal” that gave full liberalisation was the TCA from day one on all goods

It’s the EU or more specifically the ROI who have to worry about the UK/AU trade deal in beef and sheep as the supply just over 80% of all imports into the UK seems they are more worried about competition.

But let’s look at it logically UK farmers cannot feed the nation the UK population relies on imported food. The UK is not a large exporter of beef and sheep in fact its not even in the top ten of UK exports. But in regards to lamb imports remember its seasonal the UK nor the EU can supply it out of season and in the regards its NZ who would be most worried about that competition not the UK farmer the only winner is the UK consumer.
AU has not tariff-free access into the UK since we joined the EEC in 1973

Now let’s look at the top 10 exports from the UK
Machinery including computers: US$67.6 billion (14.7% of total exports)
Gems, precious metals: $65.7 billion (14.3%)
Vehicles: $40.1 billion (8.7%)
Mineral fuels including oil: $33.7 billion (7.3%)
Electrical machinery, equipment: $26.4 billion (5.7%)
Pharmaceuticals: $23.3 billion (5.1%)
Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $20.4 billion (4.4%)
Aircraft, spacecraft: $13.9 billion (3%)
Plastics, plastic articles: $12.3 billion (2.7%)
Organic chemicals: $11 billion (2.4%)
https://www.worldstopexports.com/united ... %20rows%20

Now compare that list to the top ten imports of Australia

Machinery including computers: US$36.8 billion (14.8% of total imports)
Vehicles: $33.3 billion (13.4%)
Electrical machinery, equipment: $28.1 billion (11.3%)
Mineral fuels including oil: $25.7 billion (10.4%)
Pharmaceuticals: $10.7 billion (4.3%)
Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $9.3 billion (3.7%)
Gems, precious metals: $7.7 billion (3.1%)
Plastics, plastic articles: $7.3 billion (2.9%)
Articles of iron or steel: $5.6 billion (2.3%)
Furniture, bedding, lighting, signs, prefabricated buildings: $5.6 billion (2.2%)
https://www.worldstopexports.com/austra ... 0-imports/

The UK/AU trade deal when it comes into force Australia has granted the UK complete and immediate access to its markets for all UK products unlike the UK it takes up to 15 years for Australian beef and sheep to be granted the same access.

But Eustice now claiming the UK Australia deal is a failure………come on stop with the bovine excrement

ElPistolero wrote:

Things have gone silent on the NIP front, no? Quite a bit of drama on that front this summer. Wonder what’s going on there. Nothing regulatory alignment can’t fix, I would imagine.

Don’t need regulatory alignment to fix it either

ElPistolero wrote:

And for what it’s worth, even if we agree that literally everything is an assumption or opinion, it’s hard to escape the fact that the international “assumptions” and “opinions”, particularly among money managers, are remarkably negative about post-Brexit UK. It can’t even muster up anything positive on that front.

Not all negative, but I agree that people can assume and have their own opinions all they like

A101 wrote:

Hardly No we are not

I rather think we are. We both agree that Brexit didn’t cause COVID or Ukraine, but that that it has caused economic damage - because, as you said, leavers weren’t thinking about the economics of it all - and that’s left the UK worse off than others because Brexit has made a bad situation worse.

A lot of agreement there.

A101 wrote:

No, you are being obtuse, it’s a fact that Hunt is pro remain and has never changed his position on the UK remaining in the EU.

Once a remainer, always a remainer. Can’t possibly be interested in doing what’s best for the country. Divisions run deep, with no end in sight. The real “Brexit dividend”, if you will.

Rather proves my point.

A101 wrote:

There were a number of people on the forum hoping Truss would fail even before she had taken up the mantle and were more than happy when she fell on her sword, the froth at the mouth talk from pro remain/re-join because she dared to do something different

Indeed. I was one of them. Only because she was talking nonsense throughout the leadership race. And that came to fruition in spectacular fashion - Project Fear 2.0 etc.

She voted remain, remember?

A101 wrote:

but when one of your own becomes Chancellor and moves the UK back in austerity budget you people still complain. Brexit didn’t cause Covid or cause Putin to invade the Ukraine or high inflation or the BOE to react to slow to the changing economic circumstance and Brexit didn’t do anything of that what we are seeing in the budget which are policy driven is events to help ward of recessionary pressure something all nations are doing across the globe in their own way

That’s all true, but a lot of those circumstances and mistakes were replicated in almost identical fashion elsewhere.

And yet, the problems in the UK remain uniquely bad (markets haven’t intervened elsewhere, for example).

Stands to reason that the difference is Brexit.

A101 wrote:

Seems you are just a parrot, and George Eustice knows full well we did not give” full liberalisation of beef and sheep” only “new trade deal” that gave full liberalisation was the TCA from day one on all goods

It’s the EU or more specifically the ROI who have to worry about the UK/AU trade deal in beef and sheep as the supply just over 80% of all imports into the UK seems they are more worried about competition.

But let’s look at it logically UK farmers cannot feed the nation the UK population relies on imported food. The UK is not a large exporter of beef and sheep in fact its not even in the top ten of UK exports. But in regards to lamb imports remember its seasonal the UK nor the EU can supply it out of season and in the regards its NZ who would be most worried about that competition not the UK farmer the only winner is the UK consumer.
AU has not tariff-free access into the UK since we joined the EEC in 1973

Now let’s look at the top 10 exports from the UK
Machinery including computers: US$67.6 billion (14.7% of total exports)
Gems, precious metals: $65.7 billion (14.3%)
Vehicles: $40.1 billion (8.7%)
Mineral fuels including oil: $33.7 billion (7.3%)
Electrical machinery, equipment: $26.4 billion (5.7%)
Pharmaceuticals: $23.3 billion (5.1%)
Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $20.4 billion (4.4%)
Aircraft, spacecraft: $13.9 billion (3%)
Plastics, plastic articles: $12.3 billion (2.7%)
Organic chemicals: $11 billion (2.4%)
https://www.worldstopexports.com/united ... %20rows%20

Now compare that list to the top ten imports of Australia

Machinery including computers: US$36.8 billion (14.8% of total imports)
Vehicles: $33.3 billion (13.4%)
Electrical machinery, equipment: $28.1 billion (11.3%)
Mineral fuels including oil: $25.7 billion (10.4%)
Pharmaceuticals: $10.7 billion (4.3%)
Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $9.3 billion (3.7%)
Gems, precious metals: $7.7 billion (3.1%)
Plastics, plastic articles: $7.3 billion (2.9%)
Articles of iron or steel: $5.6 billion (2.3%)
Furniture, bedding, lighting, signs, prefabricated buildings: $5.6 billion (2.2%)
https://www.worldstopexports.com/austra ... 0-imports/

The UK/AU trade deal when it comes into force Australia has granted the UK complete and immediate access to its markets for all UK products unlike the UK it takes up to 15 years for Australian beef and sheep to be granted the same access.

But Eustice now claiming the UK Australia deal is a failure………come on stop with the bovine excrement

Fascinating stuff. Doesn’t change the fact that even an ex-UKIP, dyed in the wool Brexiteer is upset that the only country that didn’t roll over the status quo, has managed to bargain from a position of strength with the UK.

Most of us here figured that the UK would be desperate to get trade deals signed in short order, to show Brexit was working. Turns out the Australians (and everyone else) figured that out too. They don’t need the trade deal quickly - the status quo is less harmful to them than to the UK, which was putting in place trade barriers with the EU and needed to offset the negative affects quickly. The end result: the Australians called the shots.

Which is a broader problem because, frankly, no other country has disrupted their trade relationship with their largest partner. They don’t need those FTAs as much as the UK. So naturally they’re extracting everything they can without making any concessions.

Seems Eustice has finally woken up to that reality. Maybe other UKIPers will too.

A101 wrote:

Don’t need regulatory alignment to fix it either

Really? What’s the other option? A hard border. We know the EU and US aren’t keen on that.

Bit of a bind. The easiest solution usually wins in these cases. And that’s regulatory alignment - because they’re already mostly regulatorily aligned.

A101 wrote:

Not all negative, but I agree that people can assume and have their own opinions all they like

That’s fair. We can nuance it. Largely negative? Mostly negative? Overwhelmingly negative? Take your pick.

We certainly agree that only part that doesn’t change among those order of magnitude options is, well, “negative”

I think we all agree that Truss was a disaster.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Hardly No we are not

I rather think we are. We both agree that Brexit didn’t cause COVID or Ukraine, but that that it has caused economic damage - because, as you said, leavers weren’t thinking about the economics of it all - and that’s left the UK worse off than others because Brexit has made a bad situation worse.
A lot of agreement there.

Don’t twist it to suit yourself, I didn’t say we were not thinking about economics just that it was not only thing on why we voted to leave.

But once again you only have the one argument. Up until the covid induced coma for global economies not just the UK was still in growth even for the short period between exit day and covid, irrespective if its 1 2 or 50% growth

People can all have the assumptions or opinions all they like the UK did not see the extreme lies that remain told would happen with a vote to leave. It was well known amongst those who choose to leave that their will be disruptions to the economy and trade.

No one can say for fact if the measure being placed by Hunt would be needed, indications pre covid that Truss budget would have been more beneficial had the current situation not materialised, one needs to remember that the both budgets presented were not in response to Brexit but the current global economic turmoil, that’s just my opinion.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

No, you are being obtuse, it’s a fact that Hunt is pro remain and has never changed his position on the UK remaining in the EU.

Once a remainer, always a remainer. Can’t possibly be interested in doing what’s best for the country. Divisions run deep, with no end in sight. The real “Brexit dividend”, if you will.
Rather proves my point.

You haven’t proved anything except in your own mind. Anti-Brexit Forum members were unimpressed with the Truss budget and also showed their disdain for the Hunt budget yet he is one of your own but according to you lot everything Brexit failure when its clearly not

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

There were a number of people on the forum hoping Truss would fail even before she had taken up the mantle and were more than happy when she fell on her sword, the froth at the mouth talk from pro remain/re-join because she dared to do something different

Indeed. I was one of them. Only because she was talking nonsense throughout the leadership race. And that came to fruition in spectacular fashion - Project Fear 2.0 etc.
She voted remain, remember?

And changed her position something the Hunt has not. Least I was prepared to keep an open mind unlike your closed mind to anything new that deviate from the EU

I seem to remember Thatcher budget was much maligned by economist in an open letter in 81. We are never going to know what would have happened if Truss held her ground. Water under the bridge now

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

but when one of your own becomes Chancellor and moves the UK back in austerity budget you people still complain. Brexit didn’t cause Covid or cause Putin to invade the Ukraine or high inflation or the BOE to react to slow to the changing economic circumstance and Brexit didn’t do anything of that what we are seeing in the budget which are policy driven is events to help ward of recessionary pressure something all nations are doing across the globe in their own way

That’s all true, but a lot of those circumstances and mistakes were replicated in almost identical fashion elsewhere.
And yet, the problems in the UK remain uniquely bad (markets haven’t intervened elsewhere, for example).
Stands to reason that the difference is Brexit.

There was nothing actually really radical about the truss budget, while its true others have cut taxes and increased borrowing, the only difference between them and the UK was that Truss did not have the supply side position ready. As in the case of Australia it has been known for years about tax cuts the markets overreacted like the cuts were happening tomorrow which was not the case.

ElPistolero wrote:

A101 wrote:

Seems you are just a parrot, and George Eustice knows full well we did not give” full liberalisation of beef and sheep” only “new trade deal” that gave full liberalisation was the TCA from day one on all goods

Fascinating stuff. Doesn’t change the fact that even an ex-UKIP, dyed in the wool Brexiteer is upset that the only country that didn’t roll over the status quo, has managed to bargain from a position of strength with the UK.

I would not categorise it as a “position of strength with the UK” more like a position of equals

ElPistolero wrote:

Most of us here figured that the UK would be desperate to get trade deals signed in short order, to show Brexit was working. Turns out the Australians (and everyone else) figured that out too. They don’t need the trade deal quickly - the status quo is less harmful to them than to the UK, which was putting in place trade barriers with the EU and needed to offset the negative affects quickly. The end result: the Australians called the shots.

What negative trade effect with the Australians, you talk like there was a EU/AU trade deal which had lost access to.

ElPistolero wrote:

Which is a broader problem because, frankly, no other country has disrupted their trade relationship with their largest partner. They don’t need those FTAs as much as the UK. So naturally they’re extracting everything they can without making any concessions.
Seems Eustice has finally woken up to that reality. Maybe other UKIPers will too.

Which concessions would that be?

Eustice and the pro-rejoin element on here continue to gloat that it’s a bad deal but its funny how no one actual says how it is bad for the UK

ElPistolero wrote:

"]

A101 wrote:

Don’t need regulatory alignment to fix it either

Really? What’s the other option? A hard border. We know the EU and US aren’t keen on that.
Bit of a bind. The easiest solution usually wins in these cases. And that’s regulatory alignment - because they’re already mostly regulatorily aligned.

No bind for NI or the UK the only bind is for the EU/ROI and the only necessary checks are for goods destined to move across the frontier A16 gives us that right as its impacting on the internal trade within the UK.

A101 wrote:

Don’t twist it to suit yourself, I didn’t say we were not thinking about economics just that it was not only thing on why we voted to leave.

But once again you only have the one argument. Up until the covid induced coma for global economies not just the UK was still in growth even for the short period between exit day and covid, irrespective if its 1 2 or 50% growth

Indeed, we agree that the UK was growing until COVID. That was never in contention.

However, as noted previously, it’s the only G7 economy that hasn’t recovered to pre-COVID levels. All of those G7 countries experienced the same COVID and Ukraine shocks over the past two years.

Occam’s razor tells us the simplest explanation is usually the best one: Only one G7 country also undertook Brexit during that period.

A101 wrote:

People can all have the assumptions or opinions all they like the UK did not see the extreme lies that remain told would happen with a vote to leave. It was well known amongst those who choose to leave that their will be disruptions to the economy and trade.

Indeed, we agree that leavers knowingly voted for economic and trade disruption. And we know that those disruptions are adding to the economic pain these days.

Which is why we can expect societal divisions to continue. Remainers certainly aren’t going to bridge the divide while incurring the consequences of what leavers knowingly voted for, during a cost of living crisis.

A101 wrote:

No one can say for fact if the measure being placed by Hunt would be needed, indications pre covid that Truss budget would have been more beneficial had the current situation not materialised, one needs to remember that the both budgets presented were not in response to Brexit but the current global economic turmoil, that’s just my opinion.

This one requires a bit more elaboration before we can determine if we agree or disagree.

Take the Truss budget. Would it have been possible if Brexit hadn’t happened? (I.e. Cameron and Osborne stayed). If not, it’s self-evidently a product of Brexit.

But we can agree that the Hunt Budget wasn’t in response to Brexit alone. It was in response to COVID + Ukraine + Brexit + Trussonomics.

A101 wrote:

You haven’t proved anything except in your own mind. Anti-Brexit Forum members were unimpressed with the Truss budget and also showed their disdain for the Hunt budget yet he is one of your own but according to you lot everything Brexit failure when its clearly not

Once again, we agree that neither Budget is “good” regardless of its provenance. It’s like infections and medication. One is not beholden to “liking” the latter just because it alleviates the symptoms of the former. But it’s true to say that humans (in general) tend to dislike the infection more than the medication that would have been unnecessary without it.

A101 wrote:

And changed her position something the Hunt has not. Least I was prepared to keep an open mind unlike your closed mind to anything new that deviate from the EU

I seem to remember Thatcher budget was much maligned by economist in an open letter in 81. We are never going to know what would have happened if Truss held her ground. Water under the bridge now

I’m reading this as: Truss’ budget is “something new that deviates from the EU”. Is that correct. If so, it contradicts your previous attempt to delink the budget from Brexit.

If not, I’m not sure why you expect Hunt to change his mind on the budget. Maybe he will, if it provokes a Truss-like meltdown.

A101 wrote:

There was nothing actually really radical about the truss budget, while its true others have cut taxes and increased borrowing, the only difference between them and the UK was that Truss did not have the supply side position ready. As in the case of Australia it has been known for years about tax cuts the markets overreacted like the cuts were happening tomorrow which was not the case.

We agree that there was nothing radical about Trussonomics.

Borrowing to fund tax cuts (as opposed to borrowing to fund investments) was incredibly unintelligent, not radical.

A101 wrote:

I would not categorise it as a “position of strength with the UK” more like a position of equals

When one side gets everything it wants and the other doesn’t, it becomes very clear who is negotiating from a position of strength. Or as the UK Cabinet Minister put it:

"At one point the then trade secretary asked her opposite number from Australia what he would need in order to conclude an agreement by G7 and of course he then set out his terms which eventually shaped the deal. We must never repeat that mistake."

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/george-e ... s-12747723

A101 wrote:

What negative trade effect with the Australians, you talk like there was a EU/AU trade deal which had lost access to.

The negative trade effect of putting up trade barriers with UK’s closest trading partner (the EU).

Trade-sanctions-in-all-but-name imposed on the UK by leavers , if you will.

A101 wrote:

Eustice and the pro-rejoin element on here continue to gloat that it’s a bad deal but its funny how no one actual says how it is bad for the UK

Eustice is a former UKIP hard Brexiteer. Best not lump him in with the pro-rejoin element. For health reasons, of course; his head might explode (and masking is no longer in vogue).

I personally wouldn’t shed any tears seeing leave-voting sheep and cattle farmers go out of business because of this.

A101 wrote:

No bind for NI or the UK the only bind is for the EU/ROI and the only necessary checks are for goods destined to move across the frontier A16 gives us that right as its impacting on the internal trade within the UK.

[/quote]

Ah, I see ECJ jurisdiction is no longer an issue. Some progress, then.

Unfortunately, don’t see checks going away if the UK keeps diverging. Might be able to reduce them, but they won’t go away.

A101 wrote:

Anti-Brexit Forum members were unimpressed with the Truss budget and also showed their disdain for the Hunt budget yet he is one of your own but according to you lot everything Brexit failure when its clearly not

Was it only "anti-brexiteers" here that showed disdain for the Truss/Kwarteng budget? How did the people that actually matter react to it? To be honest, the only person here I clearly remember showing disdain for Hunt's budget was you.

So if Brexit is "clearly not a failure" (according to you), please list some of the benefits that the average person on the High Street is enjoying.

The only benefit is a good proportion of staunch brexiteering proudboys leaving these shores and desperately trying to offload their UK assets.

Oh and paper mills are having a good run with all the extra paperwork that's now required. Thanks brexit.

The brexit echo chamber rant thread has very much returned.

A lot of contributors have brexit on the mind 24/7.

Like clockwork.

Hunt: “we will stay outside the EU but remove trade barriers.”

Brexiteers: “oh $h1t, we’re going for the Swiss model. That’s unacceptable!”

For Brexiteers like JRM, trade barriers are now emblematic of a “correct” Brexit. “Unfettered” trade is a bad thing.

“The UK could be headed for a 'Swiss-style' relationship with the EU within the next decade after it was reported senior figures in Rishi Sunak's government are considering adopting a similar attitude which removes barriers to trade.

Brexiteer Tory MPs last night reacted with fury to the reports and said it could amount to a 'betrayal' of the freedoms they say were won following the referendum result in 2016, adding the Conservative Party 'wouldn't wear it'.

Former Cabinet Minister Jacob Rees-Mogg said the Conservatives are a ‘Brexit party' and would risk becoming a 'non-Brexit party' if it agreed to 'unfettered' trade with the EU.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ip-EU.html

The nativist inclinations of the Brexit right shining through. Shock and horror. Not.

Arion640 wrote:

The brexit echo chamber rant thread has very much returned.

A lot of contributors have brexit on the mind 24/7.

OK, so prove us all wrong by listing all the benefits that the average person on the High Street has enjoyed since we left the EU. Go ahead, list them all.

Arion640 wrote:

The brexit echo chamber rant thread has very much returned.

A lot of contributors have brexit on the mind 24/7.

It is the root of many of our problems, as if in effect imposing economic sanctions on ourselves wouldn’t have a very negative effect.
Facile to argue otherwise. Enough businesses from agriculture to import and export based ones can attest to that.
So far, the response from the (diminishing) leavers is remarkably like Communists who kept insisting that the reason that the USSR, or Maoism, or wherever variations on the theme were done all failed, it was because they were just were not doing it properly .

Leave had just one well known economist on their team, Patrick Minford, who just happens to have been the inspiration and guide to the Truss/Kwarteng budget.
That notorious book those two contributed to, Britannia Unchained was also the blueprint for that disaster, (neither would those two have been in the posts they were without Brexit), which called British workers, ‘the worst idlers in the world’, are you working in the UK. A British worker? They mean you too, however much you defend them.

Small wonder consistent polls showing increasing buyers remorse, as well as rising support to start the process of at least single market re-entry.
But there are always some who find it hard, not unnaturally, to admit they were duped.
Some of us were never fooled in the first place.
By such obvious charlatans.

Of course the government cannot admit this, hence their absurd claims it’s all to do with Ukraine when EU nations far more exposed to the negative economic effects of that are recovering better, we were in a bad place before the pandemic, before Ukraine.
The difference? An in effect no deal Brexit which Leave had assured would not happen if they won the referendum.

ElPistolero wrote:

Like clockwork.

Hunt: “we will stay outside the EU but remove trade barriers.”

Brexiteers: “oh $h1t, we’re going for the Swiss model. That’s unacceptable!”

For Brexiteers like JRM, trade barriers are now emblematic of a “correct” Brexit. “Unfettered” trade is a bad thing.

“The UK could be headed for a 'Swiss-style' relationship with the EU within the next decade after it was reported senior figures in Rishi Sunak's government are considering adopting a similar attitude which removes barriers to trade.

Brexiteer Tory MPs last night reacted with fury to the reports and said it could amount to a 'betrayal' of the freedoms they say were won following the referendum result in 2016, adding the Conservative Party 'wouldn't wear it'.

Former Cabinet Minister Jacob Rees-Mogg said the Conservatives are a ‘Brexit party' and would risk becoming a 'non-Brexit party' if it agreed to 'unfettered' trade with the EU.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ip-EU.html

The nativist inclinations of the Brexit right shining through. Shock and horror. Not.

This faux outrage is funny, especially coming from a former minister like JRM, so someone who had the power to do something (and was even in charge of Brexit related stuff), considering the UK didn't even try to implement the barriers it was entitled and even obliged to. So right now there are no barriers, only one way. And the UK seems unable/unwilling to have barriers that way, so trying to lower the barriers the other way makes the most sense.

The problem with going "Swiss style" is that the EU is dead against it, and has no incentive to oblige, since there is no barrier for EU goods anyway.

This Swiss idea, so far, is political kite flying by the government, who know that the excuses for the economy are running out of road.
However it risks a rebellion by the headbangers, including a the 40 odd 'bring back Boris' bunch, plus those who pushed for Truss and her 'ideas' (about 50 with some overlap from the other group), and like the fanatics they are, still believe in it.
It could however start the change at least in the conversation here, which ultimately only leads to one thing;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS48dRAJ-ws

What I still can't get my head around is why any Brexiteer thought it is a good idea to vote for the conservative party (that in its core was and still not is pro Brexit). Also the fact that only a minority within the conservative party (the pro Brexit wing) ever thought that Brexit will go as planed by staying within the conservative party and playing second fiddle for most of the time is astonishing. What is then even more crazy was that when the Brexiteers actually were leading the conservative party they could not get their Brexit done because they still were in the minority and had to sign up to a bad deal (that was sold by Boris as a good one, because he could not admit that he indeed was a mentally incapable to draft a good deal), because Brexiteer voters actually voted for the conservative party which consisted mostly of remainers.

IMHO the ultimative failure of Brexit actually lies within the Pro-Brexit voters, because they voted for the conservative party. Now moaning it does not go the way they wanted is very interesting because it goes exactly the way they voted, a bit in and a bit out (like the split in the conservative party).

Even if you're a true Brexiteer that still think it's a good idea for the country (not just for your pockets) the original sin was the referendum itself, not done properly, and with a simple majority threshold. Any result in the 45-55 to 49-51 range was always going to be problematic.

GDB wrote:

This Swiss idea, so far, is political kite flying by the government

It is also as stupid as all the negotiation we've been through before : UK talking to UK, wiithout taking in account the other party (EU) red lines.. There's simply no way EU would contemplate this path seriously since they try for years to change the "Swiss Arrangement".
And no only that but Swiss = Single Market = freedom of movement for goods, capital, services and PEOPLE. All or nothing, no cherry picking.
Brexiteers may re-think the case, the cards they're dealing with still aren't worth the british exceptionalism of their fantasy.

Needless to say, the Brexit banner-waving trash tabloids are having a meltdown at the merest suggestion of closer ties with the EU.

Daily Express:
"Fury at 'absurd idea' to go soft on Brexit"

Dail Mail:
"Don't betray us on Brexit"

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-63697978

scbriml wrote:

Needless to say, the Brexit banner-waving trash tabloids are having a meltdown at the merest suggestion of closer ties with the EU.

Daily Express:
"Fury at 'absurd idea' to go soft on Brexit"

Dail Mail:
"Don't betray us on Brexit"

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-63697978

Certainly looks like the “Swiss model” is the proverbial dead cat thrown on the table. It’s so out there (so much so that even the EU probably won’t allow it), that one can only surmise that it’s being done to move the goal posts.

My suspicion is that the UK will now start going for regulatory alignment as the “reasonable” option that, well, isn’t as out there as the Swiss Model. In essence, the roll back on the hard Brexit is beginning. It’ll be very technical at first - but at some point the anti-Brexit polling, if it sustains itself, will become a tool to advance it. Hunt might well be right - the UK may have unfettered access within a decade with some kind of bespoke deal that accepts EU regulatory alignment, albeit in a way that makes it look like Parliament came to the same regulatory conclusions as the EU, albeit “independently”.

Think the reality of the importance of trade for economic growth is beginning to set in too. No IS trade deal on the horizon, an India deal tied to immigration that might not go well with the Tory base, an Australia deal that’s being roundly savaged (including because of its electoral implications for some Tory ridings). Nothings really going to plan anymore. Or, in other words, something needs to change.

Only a matter of time, then, before more and more Tory MPs bet their house on improving trade with the EU - at the cost of regulatory alignment - rather than chase FTAs that aren’t adding up to much (or much more than they did when UK was in the EU), if they can be found at all.

Whisper it softly, but the laws of physics seem to be creeping back into UK politics, after the Johnsonian fantasy of Brexit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63700905

'He argued that the UK was now able to "have proper control of our borders"'

I thought that the number arriving had gone up. Not sure how that is having proper control of our borders.

Government twisting itself in knots trying to make a silk purse from a sows ear.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... er-eu-ties

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

Anti-Brexit Forum members were unimpressed with the Truss budget and also showed their disdain for the Hunt budget yet he is one of your own but according to you lot everything Brexit failure when its clearly not

Was it only "anti-brexiteers" here that showed disdain for the Truss/Kwarteng budget? How did the people that actually matter react to it? To be honest, the only person here I clearly remember showing disdain for Hunt's budget was you.

So if Brexit is "clearly not a failure" (according to you), please list some of the benefits that the average person on the High Street is enjoying.

scbriml wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

The brexit echo chamber rant thread has very much returned.

A lot of contributors have brexit on the mind 24/7.

OK, so prove us all wrong by listing all the benefits that the average person on the High Street has enjoyed since we left the EU. Go ahead, list them all.

Tumbleweed....

scbriml wrote:

Tumbleweed....

Be a little patient, please!
Just 48 more years to go and all will become clear, according to JRM. ROTFL
Although even he couldn't point at a single potential benefit, as his main political achievement in office was the launch of a public equiry amongst British businesses and businessmen to help goverment indentify new opportunities to develop.

Meanwhile, on this side of the rabbit hole, British living standards are sinking through the floor, going down faster than an elevator cut loose from its suspension cable, set to decline by a whopping 7% over the next 2 years, in what is to be the biggest post World War II decline for any nation in Western Europe.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government says the war in Ukraine and the Covid pandemic are the primary reasons why Britain is staring at a painful recession, yet former BoE policymaker Michael Saunders said without Brexit, the government would have had enough financial firepower to avoid the emergency budget we are discussing in this topic and could significantly soften the economic shock like other European government can.

https://www.thesundaily.my/business/ban ... FB10227301

UK to be second weakest performer of the world’s 20 biggest economies next year according to the OECD, with only Russia suffering a bigger contraction than Britain in 2023.

The Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said of the 20 members of the G20 group of leading developed and developing nations, only Russia would suffer a bigger contraction than Britain in 2023.

In last week’s autumn statement, the Office for Budget Responsibility penciled in a 1.4% economic decline for the UK for next year.

This poor performance forecasted for Britain is to continue in 2024 with economic expansion of just 0.2% over that year according to the OECD – the joint weakest alongside Russia.

By comparison, of the three biggest EU economies, only Germany is forecasted to see a negative growth over 2023 (-0.3%), while Italy (0.2%) and France (0.6%) are likely to post modest growth figures, according to the OECD.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... rgy-crisis

sabenapilot wrote:

UK to be second weakest performer of the world’s 20 biggest economies next year according to the OECD, with only Russia suffering a bigger contraction than Britain in 2023.

The Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said of the 20 members of the G20 group of leading developed and developing nations, only Russia would suffer a bigger contraction than Britain in 2023.

In last week’s autumn statement, the Office for Budget Responsibility penciled in a 1.4% economic decline for the UK for next year.

This poor performance forecasted for Britain is to continue in 2024 with economic expansion of just 0.2% over that year according to the OECD – the joint weakest alongside Russia.

By comparison, of the three biggest EU economies, only Germany is forecasted to see a negative growth over 2023 (-0.3%), while Italy (0.2%) and France (0.6%) are likely to post modest growth figures, according to the OECD.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... rgy-crisis

Wait, you mean to say that the only country that is going to be worse than the one who willingly left the ability to have free trade with its biggest group of trading partners is one that was forced to stop trade by an even bigger number of trading partners. Imagine having known this is how economics worked 7 years ago!

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

Wait, you mean to say that the only country that is going to be worse than the one who willingly left the ability to have free trade with its biggest group of trading partners is one that was forced to stop trade by an even bigger number of trading partners. Imagine having known this is how economics worked 7 years ago!

Fred

Indeed, in the end you don't need boring experts to tell you that the higher the trading barriers get, the more costly it becomes for domestic businesses to conduct international trade and the lower their export volume is going to be.

Brexit effectively turned out to be all about the UK insanely calliing massive economic sanctions from its main trading partner upon itself through needlessly leaving the SM and CU too, something which can only be dwarfed by a complete madman in the Kremlin putting his country under quasi global economic sanctions.

Mind you, the UK still hasn't put up its trade barriers with the EU; right now it's only the EU barriers which are currently up as the UK is now a 3rd country, so all of the negative economic effects of Brexit are only as small as they can be, while lowering theirs again is something unilaterrally up to the EU to do now.... not exactly a position of strength for the UK, is it?

All this talk in the UK about "going Swiss style after all" right now in order to come to senses over Brexit and make it more or less work for the UK...
Has anybody even checked at the EU whether Brussels is even remotely interested in having another "Swiss issue" at its hands???
Last time I checked, BRU was basically arm wrestling Bern into accepting to replace their unique set of bilaterals with a single comprehensive agreement which drops all those historically grown cherry picking deals the Swiss currently enjoy, even though they have had to accept the notorious guillotine clauses in return.

sabenapilot wrote:

Be a little patient, please!
Just 48 more years to go and all will become clear, according to JRM. ROTFL

My bad.

sabenapilot wrote:

All this talk in the UK about "going Swiss style after all" right now in order to come to senses over Brexit and make it more or less work for the UK...
Has anybody even checked at the EU whether Brussels is even remotely interested in having another "Swiss issue" at its hands???

Of course nobody's asked the EU. No question should be necessary because the EU has made it pretty clear another "Swiss agreement" is not on the cards.

scbriml wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Be a little patient, please!
Just 48 more years to go and all will become clear, according to JRM. ROTFL

My bad.

Maybe you don't need to wait another 48 years after all, if you are taking guidance from preliminary data...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... orts-slump

The first major free trade agreement signed by Britain after Brexit has been branded a failure after new figures showed exports had only fallen since it came into force.

Liz Truss signed a “historic” deal with Japan as trade secretary in October 2020, describing it as a “landmark moment for Britain", claiming it would boost trade by billions of pounds, yet figures collated by the Department for International Trade show exports to Japan fell from £12.3bn to £11.9bn in the first year it was in effect. Exports in goods fell 4.9% to £6.1bn and services fell 2% to £5.8bn.

The new figures follow evidence that Britain’s economy is set to struggle compared to its international counterparts.

Minako Morita-Jaeger, a senior research fellow in international trade at Sussex University business school and a policy research fellow of the UK Trade Policy Observatory, said the government had “oversold” the UK-Japan trade agreement as it did not offer significant economic advantages over the previous EU deal. “In all cases but one, Japanese exports and imports of goods and services with the UK performed worse than the equivalent flows with the EU."

She said research had shown Japanese firms were having difficulties navigating the UK-EU trade framework and were expanding their business functions, including headquarters and production, in the EU instead.


It's increasingly clear there is just no Brexit dividend, so -contrary to what was written on the side of BoJo's red bus- there's no cash to hand out either, hence the need for a painful emergency budget.

sabenapilot wrote:

scbriml wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Be a little patient, please!
Just 48 more years to go and all will become clear, according to JRM. ROTFL

My bad.

Maybe you don't need to wait another 48 years after all, if you are taking guidance from preliminary data...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... orts-slump

The first major free trade agreement signed by Britain after Brexit has been branded a failure after new figures showed exports had only fallen since it came into force.

Liz Truss signed a “historic” deal with Japan as trade secretary in October 2020, describing it as a “landmark moment for Britain", claiming it would boost trade by billions of pounds, yet figures collated by the Department for International Trade show exports to Japan fell from £12.3bn to £11.9bn in the first year it was in effect. Exports in goods fell 4.9% to £6.1bn and services fell 2% to £5.8bn.

The new figures follow evidence that Britain’s economy is set to struggle compared to its international counterparts.

Minako Morita-Jaeger, a senior research fellow in international trade at Sussex University business school and a policy research fellow of the UK Trade Policy Observatory, said the government had “oversold” the UK-Japan trade agreement as it did not offer significant economic advantages over the previous EU deal. “In all cases but one, Japanese exports and imports of goods and services with the UK performed worse than the equivalent flows with the EU."

She said research had shown Japanese firms were having difficulties navigating the UK-EU trade framework and were expanding their business functions, including headquarters and production, in the EU instead.


It's increasingly clear there is just no Brexit dividend, so -contrary to what was written on the side of BoJo's red bus- there's no cash to hand out either, hence the need for a painful emergency budget.

I noticed that the article did not mention the caveat within the blog used to write the article

One important caveat should be considered: The disappointing changes in UK-Japan trade reported above could be driven by poor Japanese performance in all markets. Hence, relative to changes in Japan’s trade with other countries, trade with the UK may have in fact been performing very well. To assess this, we need to consider Japanese data, which then raises issues of compatibility across different data sources. Hence, for example, changes in the UK’s reported exports to Japan should – in principle – match the changes in reported Japanese imports from the UK. In practice, this is rarely the case and the discrepancies can be quite large. This is especially the case when looking at trade in services which is notoriously harder to measure. Nevertheless, we have considered both Japanese Balance of Payments statistics (for goods and services) and UN Comtrade data for trade in goods. In all cases but one, Japanese exports and imports of both goods and services with the UK performed worse than the equivalent flows with the EU or the Rest of the World[1].

https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2022/0 ... -cepa-fta/

Also within the blog it is stated

Data source: Office of National Statistics (ONS); calculations are authors’ own.

No idea if a third party verified her calculations

Also there is some dispute with the figures

https://facts4eu.org/news/2022_nov_obse ... s#comments

I’ll leave it to you to say how they are wrong

A101 wrote:

https://facts4eu.org/news/2022_nov_obse ... s#comments

I’ll leave it to you to say how they are wrong

I really wouldn't quote or refer to a website like that. One that has more "remoaner" words in one page than I've heard in my lifetime. One that has a page dedicated to trying to promote (still ???) "Go WTO".

This bit really makes me laugh:

A failure to understand international trade
Anyone with experience in international trade (actually doing it, rather than producing academic reports about it) will tell you that it takes time to expand into new markets.

Firstly the directors of a company must decide there is a potential market for their goods or services. Then they have to review the new trade deal and tariff and quota arrangements, possibly seek support from the Dept for International Trade, maybe participate in a trade fair organised by that department, and decide to invest time, effort and money into an export sales operation.

When it comes to Japan, there is the language factor to consider. Whilst many Japanese speak some English it is not a naturally easy language for them. If you want to make an impact it’s best to have a Japanese language version of at least some of your webpages. When it comes to services - something in which the UK excels - this is especially true.

None of this happens overnight. Then there are the logistics to consider for goods exports – the transportation, shipping, and delivery of goods and employing a Japanese import agent, for example.

Seriously? "A failure to understand international trade". This from a viewpoint who still refuses to accept that all countries do most trade with those closest to them. That putting barriers up to trade to those closest markets is going to have a significant impact.

Most UK businesses are SMBs. They are NOT multinationals, so no matter what you do they won't sell or ship to customers in Japan. Whereas they could freely and easily ship to hundreds of millions of customers less than 30 miles away. I was one of them. I ran an SMB for 8 years with 40% of my business selling to the EU. It stopped a few years ago because of Brexit and my life changed considerably because of it. I know dozens of other SMBs who are the same. A few have even gone bust owing money. A few lost their family homes because of it because they were tied to company loans.


A failure to understand that pure "free trade" worldwide is a fantasy and that rules and regulations agreed in the EU that all countries need to follow were developed, written and agreed with the UK. That these regulations include safeguards for employees, the environment, animals and customers. That the likes of Jacob Rees Mog demanding to burn all EU regulation is as stupid as it gets and it won't increase UK trade. It will make it even more of an outlier.

The same people shout when any remote potential alignment is made (see recent mumblings of a Swiss type deal) to make things easier to trade. It's like the only Brexit they can possible fathom as being Brexit is one where barriers to trade exist and they demand you sell to other countries half way round the world. If it wasn't so serious it would be one of the funniest things ever. Ignoring everything they promised pre ReferenDUM when they all said "Brexit does not mean leaving the single market". Then as soon as they actually bothered to read and understand what the affects of a deal was (in regard to immigration), all of a sudden "we must leave the single market at all costs else it's not Brexit".



It's time certain people are ignored. Their idiocy and faliousy has caused the UK immense harm and is stopping it from moving forward. What happened with Truss (cheered on by most of the Tories) as shown that.
The ERG, websites like that, the Telegraph, the Daily Mail. Ignore all of it and try and come back to some sort of reality please.

We are all going to be poorer because of the decisions taken by Truss (and supported / voted for by the Tories and press). They didn't have to happen, and nobody sensible was suggesting to do it. Pre mini budget nobody was talking about cuts. There was no 50 billion black hole (may have been one but it was mightly smaller). And now we have a Tory party who refuses to clamp down in areas they could do, to make up for this. Instead raising tax (covertly) on middle earners for years. And at the same time completely ignoring the £9-10 billion lost through fraud, and given to friends and mates during covid. Companies who had zero experience in providing PPE given contracts worth hundreds of millions. Companies set up literally months ago getting awarded contracts via the VIP lane (illegal as per the high court ruling) and MPs families getting rich off the back of it, instead of contracts going to existing PPE suppliers with pre approved stock.

Today the government is still paying hundreds of thousands a day in storage costs of PPE that cannot be used.

This is tax payers money, tax payers are being asked to pay again for the pure corruption and incompetance of the Tory party. It's a farce.


You don't have to believe / sunddenly switch to the Guardian or something you consider to be remoaner based, but there are surely moderate unbiased websites / press out there. Unless you're that far gone you don't believe any of it unless it says Brexit isn't as bad as the majority now really thinks (knows) it is.

Reinhardt wrote:

A101 wrote:

https://facts4eu.org/news/2022_nov_obse ... s#comments

I’ll leave it to you to say how they are wrong

I really wouldn't quote or refer to a website like that. One that has more "remoaner" words in one page than I've heard in my lifetime. One that has a page dedicated to trying to promote (still ???) "Go WTO".

This bit really makes me laugh:

A failure to understand international trade
Anyone with experience in international trade (actually doing it, rather than producing academic reports about it) will tell you that it takes time to expand into new markets.

Firstly the directors of a company must decide there is a potential market for their goods or services. Then they have to review the new trade deal and tariff and quota arrangements, possibly seek support from the Dept for International Trade, maybe participate in a trade fair organised by that department, and decide to invest time, effort and money into an export sales operation.

When it comes to Japan, there is the language factor to consider. Whilst many Japanese speak some English it is not a naturally easy language for them. If you want to make an impact it’s best to have a Japanese language version of at least some of your webpages. When it comes to services - something in which the UK excels - this is especially true.

None of this happens overnight. Then there are the logistics to consider for goods exports – the transportation, shipping, and delivery of goods and employing a Japanese import agent, for example.

Seriously? "A failure to understand international trade". This from a viewpoint who still refuses to accept that all countries do most trade with those closest to them. That putting barriers up to trade to those closest markets is going to have a significant impact.

Most UK businesses are SMBs. They are NOT multinationals, so no matter what you do they won't sell or ship to customers in Japan. Whereas they could freely and easily ship to hundreds of millions of customers less than 30 miles away. I was one of them. I ran an SMB for 8 years with 40% of my business selling to the EU. It stopped a few years ago because of Brexit and my life changed considerably because of it. I know dozens of other SMBs who are the same. A few have even gone bust owing money. A few lost their family homes because of it because they were tied to company loans.


A failure to understand that pure "free trade" worldwide is a fantasy and that rules and regulations agreed in the EU that all countries need to follow were developed, written and agreed with the UK. That these regulations include safeguards for employees, the environment, animals and customers. That the likes of Jacob Rees Mog demanding to burn all EU regulation is as stupid as it gets and it won't increase UK trade. It will make it even more of an outlier.

The same people shout when any remote potential alignment is made (see recent mumblings of a Swiss type deal) to make things easier to trade. It's like the only Brexit they can possible fathom as being Brexit is one where barriers to trade exist and they demand you sell to other countries half way round the world. If it wasn't so serious it would be one of the funniest things ever. Ignoring everything they promised pre ReferenDUM when they all said "Brexit does not mean leaving the single market". Then as soon as they actually bothered to read and understand what the affects of a deal was (in regard to immigration), all of a sudden "we must leave the single market at all costs else it's not Brexit".



It's time certain people are ignored. Their idiocy and faliousy has caused the UK immense harm and is stopping it from moving forward. What happened with Truss (cheered on by most of the Tories) as shown that.
The ERG, websites like that, the Telegraph, the Daily Mail. Ignore all of it and try and come back to some sort of reality please.

We are all going to be poorer because of the decisions taken by Truss (and supported / voted for by the Tories and press). They didn't have to happen, and nobody sensible was suggesting to do it. Pre mini budget nobody was talking about cuts. There was no 50 billion black hole (may have been one but it was mightly smaller). And now we have a Tory party who refuses to clamp down in areas they could do, to make up for this. Instead raising tax (covertly) on middle earners for years. And at the same time completely ignoring the £9-10 billion lost through fraud, and given to friends and mates during covid. Companies who had zero experience in providing PPE given contracts worth hundreds of millions. Companies set up literally months ago getting awarded contracts via the VIP lane (illegal as per the high court ruling) and MPs families getting rich off the back of it, instead of contracts going to existing PPE suppliers with pre approved stock.

Today the government is still paying hundreds of thousands a day in storage costs of PPE that cannot be used.

This is tax payers money, tax payers are being asked to pay again for the pure corruption and incompetance of the Tory party. It's a farce.


You don't have to believe / sunddenly switch to the Guardian or something you consider to be remoaner based, but there are surely moderate unbiased websites / press out there. Unless you're that far gone you don't believe any of it unless it says Brexit isn't as bad as the majority now really thinks (knows) it is.

Seems you have your own bias as well. The link I used and the figures it provided are all used via either the ONS or the EU own reporting or other nations officials.

You might not like what they say but just like everyone else can contribute and provide the official statistics to compare with.

That was the point of the link and I provided the link to the report used in the guardian which is quite biased in its own reporting youcan make up your own mind to which was right or not

Figures can come from ONS we have to remember the issue is rarely with the figure themselves but the way they are presented.

Take the chart in your fact4EU link with the value of UK good exports to japan proudly named "UK goods exports to Japan have increased in the last two years, in £’s millions".
Immediately I'd have two questions :
- why presenting only from period sept2019-oct2020 ?
- are numbers corrected for inflation ?

The first one is easy to understand, it starts with the worst possible period with the pandemic effect. Making an increase after this period quite normal and IMO not a very telling indicator.
Maybe starting much earlier would be better, like in this table page 5.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1117781/japan-trade-and-investment-factsheet-2022-11-18.pdf
There we can see good exports were increasing nicely till 2019, when UK was operating under EU's agreements. A drop with the COVID and no come back (yet?) to to pre-pandemic level.
Which is basically in line with what was said upthread, other big economies recovered from covid shock and UK not yet.

I have more difficulty with the second one, but as there is no indication about inflation I tend to believe there is no correction at all. Therefore an export value of £5,967b 2 years ago may be a smaller figure than £6,248b, this ~5% increase could very well be a lesser quantity given the inflation rate we're going through.

I thing the fact4EU bias is rather clear to see there : they want to present an uncomplete recovery as a success, and I agree with Reinhard, this website shouldn't be taken as a source they way you did.

edit : And by the way, I also checked the caveat of the non recovery being caused by japan's performance but playing with EU's data the argument doesn't hold much as the 09-2021 monthly figure already showed higher value than any pre-pandemic month and continued to increase since then. You have to play with this nice tool
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/EXT_ST_EU27_2020SITC__custom_3988608/default/line?lang=en

A101 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

scbriml wrote:

My bad.

Maybe you don't need to wait another 48 years after all, if you are taking guidance from preliminary data...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... orts-slump

The first major free trade agreement signed by Britain after Brexit has been branded a failure after new figures showed exports had only fallen since it came into force.

Liz Truss signed a “historic” deal with Japan as trade secretary in October 2020, describing it as a “landmark moment for Britain", claiming it would boost trade by billions of pounds, yet figures collated by the Department for International Trade show exports to Japan fell from £12.3bn to £11.9bn in the first year it was in effect. Exports in goods fell 4.9% to £6.1bn and services fell 2% to £5.8bn.

The new figures follow evidence that Britain’s economy is set to struggle compared to its international counterparts.

Minako Morita-Jaeger, a senior research fellow in international trade at Sussex University business school and a policy research fellow of the UK Trade Policy Observatory, said the government had “oversold” the UK-Japan trade agreement as it did not offer significant economic advantages over the previous EU deal. “In all cases but one, Japanese exports and imports of goods and services with the UK performed worse than the equivalent flows with the EU."

She said research had shown Japanese firms were having difficulties navigating the UK-EU trade framework and were expanding their business functions, including headquarters and production, in the EU instead.


It's increasingly clear there is just no Brexit dividend, so -contrary to what was written on the side of BoJo's red bus- there's no cash to hand out either, hence the need for a painful emergency budget.

I noticed that the article did not mention the caveat within the blog used to write the article

One important caveat should be considered: The disappointing changes in UK-Japan trade reported above could be driven by poor Japanese performance in all markets. Hence, relative to changes in Japan’s trade with other countries, trade with the UK may have in fact been performing very well. To assess this, we need to consider Japanese data, which then raises issues of compatibility across different data sources. Hence, for example, changes in the UK’s reported exports to Japan should – in principle – match the changes in reported Japanese imports from the UK. In practice, this is rarely the case and the discrepancies can be quite large. This is especially the case when looking at trade in services which is notoriously harder to measure. Nevertheless, we have considered both Japanese Balance of Payments statistics (for goods and services) and UN Comtrade data for trade in goods. In all cases but one, Japanese exports and imports of both goods and services with the UK performed worse than the equivalent flows with the EU or the Rest of the World[1].

https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2022/0 ... -cepa-fta/

Also within the blog it is stated

Data source: Office of National Statistics (ONS); calculations are authors’ own.

No idea if a third party verified her calculations

Also there is some dispute with the figures

https://facts4eu.org/news/2022_nov_obse ... s#comments

I’ll leave it to you to say how they are wrong

This drop in trade was telegraphed by Japan before Brexit.

Japan issued its warning in a 15-page memo on UK trade published on its foreign ministry website.

“Japanese businesses with their European headquarters in the UK may decide to transfer their head-office function to continental Europe if EU laws cease to be applicable in the UK after its withdrawal”, it said.

It noted that about half of Japanese firms that are active in the EU, such as carmakers Nissan and Mitsubishi, or financial firm Nomura, had chosen the UK as a “gateway to Europe”, adding: “We strongly request that the UK will consider this fact seriously and respond in a responsible manner to minimise any harmful effects on these businesses.”

https://euobserver.com/green-economy/134897

The only surprise is that it’s coming as a surprise to the geniuses at Facts4EU. The Japanese are doing exactly what they said they would. Too bad some folk weren’t listening.