Johnny Bognor

Errrr I thought the Base rate was 0.25%. Not negative... Meanwhile a UK company is about to acquire what was HP. There is good and bad news all round, as there always is. Seems the blinkered and pessimistic remainers only focus on the negative. Maybe that's why they're so ****ing miserable Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

“Brexit is not a matter of punishment. It’s not a matter of revenge,” Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament’s representative on Brexit matters, said during a debate in Strasbourg, France today. Seems like they're softening quite nicely...

Still not as bad as people expected.... still not as bad as so called experts predicted.... Remainers have been all doom and gloom since the referendum... remember this one? The markets have fully recovered and the UK as a whole has so far withstood the referendum shock in terms of trade, employment, inflation etc etc. The only real major change is a devalutation in the £, which has downsides, but has many positives too.

I see the unemployment rate has fallen from 5.6% to 4.9% and average weekly earnings increased by 2.4% over the may-july period. What with the markets recovering, balance of trade deficit down, inflation stable and a whole host of other good news .... we are a long long long way from financial armagedon .

I did cut and paste. I didn't pass it as my own work. I was too busy taking advantage of a low pound to boost our exports...

In practice, trade agreements almost always extend to cover broader subject matter than just tariffs and related matters falling within the scope of the EEC/EU common commercial policy. Where an external agreement contains provisions which extend beyond the scope of the common commercial policy or the EU’s other powers to conclude external agreements in its own name, it is necessary for the Member States as well as the EU to be parties to the agreement. This is called a “mixed” or “shared” competence agreement: where part of the competence to conclude the agreement belongs to the EU, but part of it remains with the Member States. One particularly important series of agreements which involved mixed competence were the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreements which were concluded in 1993 as a result of the Uruguay Round Multilateral Trade Negotiations. This linked series of Agreements forms the bedrock of global trade. Both the individual Member States including the UK, and the EU itself, are parties to the WTO Agreements. The respective legal powers of the EC (as it then was) and the Member States were ruled upon by the European Court of Justice in Op 1/94 Re the Uruguay Round Agreements [1994] ECR I-5267. The Court rejected a contention by the European Commission that the EC had across-the-board competence to conclude the WTO Agreements in its own name. Although the core provisions of the WTO Agreements relating to trade in goods fell within the EC’s exclusive competence under the common commercial policy, the Court ruled that other areas covered by the WTO Agreements relating to services (parts of the General Agreement on Trade in Services - GATS) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) were outside the EC’s competence or were areas where the EC’s competence was shared with the Member States. The upshot of this “mixed competence” scenario is that vis-a-vis other parties, the EC/EU is responsible for compliance with, and entitled to the benefit of, certain aspects of the WTO Agreements; while the Member States individually remain responsible for, and entitled to the benefit of, the remaining aspects. The boundary between EC/EU and Member State competences is not stationary: under the ECJ’s Lugano doctrine, the EU acquires external competence in areas where internal EU harmonisation occurs, and a significant shift in competence took place under the Lisbon Treaty which made the trade-related aspects of intellectual property part of the EU’s commercial policy. While this fluctuating boundary line may be confusing for other WTO members, it is in general accepted by them. However, the consequence of this after Brexit is straightforward. The EU will cease to have any competence in respect of the UK’s trade or other external relations, and the UK will automatically assume rights and responsibilities in respect of 100% of its relationship with other members under the WTO Agreements. In addition, trade relations between the UK and the remaining EU (“the r-EU”) will cease to be governed by the EU treaties, and will automatically be governed by the framework of the WTO Agreements - unless of course a replacement trade agreement is negotiated between the UK and the r-EU which comes into force on exit. There is no question of the UK having to leave the WTO or to re-apply for membership. The UK is one of the original founding members of the WTO, as laid down by Article XI(1) of the WTO Agreement

Really?????? Let us remind ourselves of a fundamental point: the UK does not need to negotiate access to the WTO. Like the EU, the UK is an original member of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and a founding member of the WTO. The UK, thus, has rights and commitments in the WTO. Even if insanity triumphed and we didn’t get a withdrawal agreement from the EU – that they opted to cut their nose off to spite their face – the UK and EU would still have a deal. An automatic deal under the all embracing World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. How? Because the UK and EU are both WTO members in their own right and the WTO specifies WTO members must offer each other ‘Most Favoured Nation’ (MFN) deals... Let's hope this chap is negotiating on behalf of the EU!!!

I think you may need to consider the insight into negotiation tactics that I gave to me old pedigree chum. Leaders are hardly going to say don't worry the UK will get exactly what they want. Pre negotiation, you set out your position. It's only when you get round the table that there could be movements in your position. Pretty basic negotiation tactics really...

Indeed. That applies to both sides of the house. Corbyn never really supported remain, but had to be seen to be a remainer to advance his political career. And there was me thinking he was a conviction politician with principles, offering a new kind of politics.

Hey if you want to take the opinion of someone who left uni (after studying history) and worked straight for the independent (without any real world business experience), then crack on!! His credentials are impeccable... https://uk.linkedin.com/in/ben-chu-2859b694 Jeez, even I have more economic qualifications than this half-wit

Free movement of people vs free movement of labour... there is some room for manoeuvre Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I don’t disagree with this sentiment at all and in fact think you have called this one correctly. But the fact that they wish to impose maximum damage on a sovereign nation state exercising democracy, because it doesn’t fit with their agenda, is good enough reason to leave the EU IMO. This dictatorial approach will only lead to trouble further down the line (Maybe the plans for the EU army being discussed this weekend will result in an eventual civil war). The balance of trade deficit fell by £1billion last month helped by a boost in exports of £800m and a £300m reduction in car imports. A few months like this and you may start to see those with a real democratic mandate (i.e the German politicians), come to the fore. There is growing anti-EU sentiment across Europe and if the elected national politicians don’t listen and bring the eurocrats under control, there will be trouble ahead. Just look at Germany’s elections this week. A far right party only established 3 years ago, smashed Merkel’s party into 3rd place. The Germans are going to have to step up to the plate. Back to trade, the worst case scenario is that we default to WTO rules. Average tariffs are 10%. Our currency is already 12% cheaper than it was pre-referendum. So any tariffs from the EU have already been negated. Add the fact that we would be able to place 10% tariffs on the EU, means that there would be more money in the pot over and above our saving in membership fees. I’m not saying this is ideal and would prefer free market access overall (which is the main plus point for being in the EU), but it doesn’t look like we are going to get it if the eurocrat’s maintain their stance…

I think you need to educate yourself. Find out about how changing what was a constitution to a treaty meant that the EU could bypass the will of the French, Dutch and Irish. When you've finished that assignment, your next project is to find out about the yellow card, how it has been played twice and how the EU chose to ignore it (against their own rules) the second time. Finally, when you've done that, maybe you will see why some senior EU politicians hold the UK in such contempt, especially the ***** in verbal's video. The reaction by some of them post referendum is quite frankly disgusting. It's their way or the high way Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

When the EU isnt working, the answer is more EU. Watching that video shows that there needs to be a shift in power away from democratically elected governments to an autocratic super state in order for Europe to work. The EU has lots of form on ignoring the will of the people from circumventing countries' constitutions to ignoring the yellow card played by countries to place a break on new legislation (yet remainers seem to delude themselves that we have a say) This is about a struggle between the power of the people and the power of the state.

...

So Corbyn thinks we should come out of the Single Market. .. Damn. Now I am thinking we should ditch brexit..

Love it how they state that Britain is back of the queue and a deal would come after an EU pact. Then in the detail it leans more towards the fact that talks have already started with the EU and that meaningful talks couldn't start with the UK until Brexit was complete. So it is not so much that we are back of the queue, more a case of the EU are in a position to talk right now and we're not

Not sure why I am quoting the Ford spokesperson from the article you posted but here goes... "Due to the success of our other advanced-technology engines - including the 1.0-litre EcoBoost petrol engine - and anticipated changes in demand in Europe and other markets, we now expect the global volume of the new engines not to be as high as originally planned," said a spokesman. So don't expect global volumes to be as high and there are anticipated changes in demand. Seems sensible to cut back costs if you ask me. No mention of brexit though. keep taking the pills

I think he is confusing the beginning of Ford's decline (which started a few years ago with the likes of Southampton and Genk closing) with the beginning of brexit fall out. To be honest, it's a difficult mistake to make, so we should give him credit for it

The article states that this is due to a fall in anticipated global demand, not Brexit. So what is beginning exactly???

It's a good job we have a decent opposition to hold them to account then, isn't it? Oh, wait a minute... ...perhaps if the lefties can get their house in order (yeah, right), then some pressure could be applied to the government??? It's like a penalty shoot out, with a keeper on crutches whilst everyone is standing around arguing who should be taking the penalty.

Oh yes, I must have been imagining the Data Protection Act. Silly me.

As for being able to influence policy making, did you hear the joke about the yellow card system?? Take the yellow card, shown to the EU over the plans to create a European Public Prosecutor Office (EPPO) The national parliaments from 11 EU member states (the UK, Czech Republic, Cyprus, France, Hungary, Ireland, Malta, Netherlands, Sweden, Romania and Slovenia) have complained that plans for an EPPO breach the subsidiarity principle. The ‘yellow card’ provision was introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, stating that if one third or more national parliaments object to an EU proposal on subsidiarity grounds (within an eight week window), then the Commission has to reconsider the proposal. The Commission can choose to ignore parliaments’ “yellow card” and has, in this case, decided to do so. That the Commission has rejected the views of such a large number of Europe’s national legislatures and continues to push on regardless with this latest plan for an EPPO only serves to reinforce the view, held by many, that the subsidiarity clause, much trumpeted at the time of its introduction, holds no real power.

Errr.... that was the unions, who continued to hamper the UK economy years AFTER we joined the EEC. I expected better of you to be honest.

Jeez, where do I start with this? I guess I can start with my area of expertise... The European Data Protection Regulations and the European Communications Privacy Directive. All UK businesses HAVE to comply, whether or not they export, because it is the law. Laws imposed on the UK, who had little say in them. If they were just applied to the 11% who export, then fair enough. But the 89% who don't export, have to comply. I could go on, but just with these two pieces of legislation, there is a fair bit of red tape. Do you want any more?????