Johnny Bognor

I never said that the EU would cease to be an important trading partner. The long term trend has been a fall in the share of exports. The growth in exports to ROW has been double that of exports to the EU. So the gap has been widening and continues to widen... No one knows the extent of the Rotterdam effect, so at 45%, they are already overstated. The widening may accelerate over time ... to what extent, who knows.. But as it grows, our reliance reduces and our negotiating position improves..

To start with, we can't negotiate trade deals. But India is interesting. I read about US companies going into India, via the UK due to our historical links. Agreed, we need as much exporting as we can get to maintain our status in the world. My point came down to engineering a negotiating position, that means we still have Free access to the EU, whilst dealing with free movement. Nice touch!

The 25% was plucked out of the air as an example of a stronger negotiating position, it was hypothetical. Once you get your head round that, then you will be able to see the general point that I was making. That is, currently a deal with the EU is worth having. But, there may be a point in time where it is not so important. I never said that this would definitely happen. I stated that it is possible and that we should try to engineer it, by striking trade deals elsewhere. IF or WHEN such a situation occurs, we would be able to structure a better deal. Now that the Chief Economist at PwC has dared to suggest that exports to the EU might fall, whilst exports to ROW may increase, it adds gravitas to the possibility that the share will change and we will be in a stronger position to negotiate. By the way, it is possible to have a fall in the share of exports to the EU (which has been happening for over a decade) along with a contracting global economy. It is the fall in the share, not the measure of totality which provides a stronger negotiating position. Therefore, I don't need to answer such irrelevant points. It's funny that beancounters like yourself get lost in the detail without getting their heads round the overall vision. You did make a valid point that it may be difficult to sell my hypothetical suggestion to the Brexiters, but it would be easier to sell my position than either trade+free movement vs no trade+border control Again, this is fairly basic stuff me ol' pedigree chump.... Now I am feeling sorry for you and out of pity, I'll give you a hand. Had you come back with the fact that imports from the EU might fall due to the weakening of the £, this would have the opposite effect on our negotiating position, in that the EU would need us less than they currently do. Sometimes it's best not to over complicate things. When you get sight of goal, take a shot.

Since you have quoted PwC a number of times, I took this from their website. John Hawksworth, chief economist at PwC, said this on Tuesday... “UK economic growth held up reasonably well in the run-up to the referendum and, while the vote to leave the EU was a major shock, we would expect the relatively flexible UK economy to adapt to this in the long term. But growth is likely to be significantly slower in the short term due to the political and economic uncertainty following the Brexit vote, which is likely to cause some business investment to be scaled down or deferred. The Bank of England has already taken action to steady the ship, however, and we do not expect the post-Brexit economic downturn to be anything like as severe as that following the global financial crisis of 2008-9 or indeed the deep recession of the early 1980s. Our main scenario projections suggests that the UK should narrowly avoid a recession over the next year, although we recognise that risks are weighted somewhat to the downside at present." Not great, but not a disaster. But this is the bit I really like... “Businesses need to hold their nerve through this unsettled period, take stock of the potential impact of Brexit on their markets and operations, and make contingency plans for alternative outcomes. They should also consider the longer term upside possibilities stemming from Brexit, particularly in terms of building closer trade relationships with relatively fast growing economies like China and India to offset any decline in trade with the EU27.” What's that you say, pedigree chump? The top man in PwC (an organisation often referenced by you), agreeing with little old Johnny Bognor? Who'd have thought it?

Political parties have controlled their MP's with promises to do something, if and when the conditions are right for decades. Blair/Brown said they would look at joing the Euro when certain conditions were met. The fact they were never met, is by the by. But we are all jumping ahead of the gun. None of us have any idea of what deal will be struck. Looking at Norway, Switzerland or Canada doesn't give an indication. It could be that we get control of borders, in exchange for contributing more to the pot, to get that elusive trade deal. What is certain is that we won't get it all our own way and something has to give. But that only has to be given until such a point in time that our position changes. For the last decade, the growth rates of exports to the rest of the world has been double that of exports to the EU. So we are currently at 45% of exports (down from 55% in 1999) and if current trends continue, this position WILL continue to fall. Factor in a weaker £ angainst the $, factor in the faster growth rates of developing economies, factor in the Rotterdam effect (where we are already overstating exports to the EU), factor in new trade deals with fast growing economies and I can see that fall in the share accelerating over time. And all of this is without the Eurozone going into meltdown. Although my example was hypothetical, it is possible. UK exports to BRIC countries have doubled since the financial crisis.

Sorry used Winnalot for Bucktootim already

So you never get u turns in politics? Never do things based on prevailing conditions or changes to them? My argument would be it is our intention to control borders, but only when the right conditions are met. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

But it doesn't change the position of accepting free movement now and renegotiating, if and when things are more favourable... basic common sense pedigree chump The original question assumes that we would have to accept free movement indefinitely, for the benefit of an EU trade deal. The basis of my argument is that we may well have to accept it now, but things change and if they do and they become more favourable, then we renegotiate. If there is anything we can do to expedite a more favourable position, such as negotiating new trade deals with other countries, then we should do it... Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Again you are making the assumption that things will stay the same.... No consideration for what will happen to the eurozone. .. Greece Italy Spain? ?? No consideration for other potential exits. So may be 5 to 10 years is optimistic, as I said, it was hypothetical. But it is entirely feasible that we could be in a stronger negotiating position some time down the line. If and when that occurs, one can renegotiate. Still basic stuff, pedigree chump Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Of course it is. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Errrr so you wouldn't negotiate from a position of strength? A basic lesson in getting what you want. Get to a position of strength. It's basic Barrow boy stuff. That's why academic achievement doesn't always correlate to creating wealth. It would be advantageous to have free trade with the EU, as things stand. But, another valuable lesson from the university of life, and im sorry to break it to you, but things change. As it stands, I don't need beans, so your position is weak. But should I need beans in the future, you might get a deal. Anyway, i said the situation was hypothetical, pedigree chum Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

OK I'll play. You assume that everything is fixed and its not. it all comes down to a power balance. Currently 45% of exports go to the EU. At that level, it is important. So I would accept free movement for a free trade deal, for the time being. Then over the next 5 /10 years, I would secure trade deals with the top non eu economies, something that the EU has miserably failed to do in its entire existence. Lets face it, getting 28 countries to agree on most things is nigh on impossible. Then, when say exports to the EU are down to 25% overall, then I would tell them to do one on free movement. Obviously if and when the eurozone implodes in the meantime, as lets face it, it is unsustainable, then I would tell them to do one. I would engineer a position of strength, a shift in the power balance before doing so. That way it is possible to get control of our borders and minimise the effects on trade. All hypothetical, I know. But it is possible to acheive nevertheless.

Very good, winnalot (see what i did there? Someone who is good at games, dog food brand?) Very good, but he who pays the piper..

One of the reasons for distrust and causes of misconceptions, is the use of funded academics that strangly have an opinion that supports the EU, pedigree chum. #tiredofeufundedexperts Anyway dog lovers, I am off for a cat nap. Sweet dreams

Yes I do. I work extensively with Gallup. I probably have a better idea than you could possibly imagine, bakers. Ipsos Mori, quoting someone so biased in their article, does not do them justice, bakers

So just because I choose to promote an alternative brand of dog food, and I am not a regressive (progressive with its positive connotations is completely misdescriptive, being in mind the negativity shown by them, which wont be used going forward), I am a knob? i can live with that. I've been called a lot worse, bakers

and anand was quoted by them and his opinion is worthless when he is on the payroll. In other news, a turkey was quoted as saying that Christmas is bad for turkeys. No sh it shurlock!!!! The EU is the greatest ponzi scheme in history. Set up organisations, fund them, self promotion, brainwash. Simple really... it would be funny if they weren't using our cash to do it, pedigree chum

i love academins like Anand Menon, quoted in the article. He's one of those in bed with the monnet bunch, who get their funding from the EU, to do, Guess what?? Promote the EU. Show me who is getting paid what and by whom, and I can tell you the outcome of their supposed opinion and wisdom. Carry on taking each article on its merits, pedigree chum

LOL, never a truer word and all that, pedigree chum

Have no problem with that, but the 'talk' during the referendum campaign, particularly from the IMF and the way in which it was reported, certainly implied that there might be a recession. My issue is not with the numbers per se, but what they were implying. Anyway, i dont remember you getting your knickers in a twist when the UK GDP growth forecast was reduced to 0.8% in 2011, pedigree chum.

No chip, just find it amusing that all these so called predictions designed to scare people, arent really coming to fruition. It started with the FTSE 100, but when it recovered, everyone moved to the 250, which is now not far off what it was. Pre referendum, people like the BBC never mentioned the 250. The BBCs scratching around to find anything remotely negative to suit their clearly biased agenda. its no surprise that confidence is waning when the mainstream media are fueling it. As fir the chip, It's almost as if the progressives want everything to go pear shaped and want people to suffer, just for some self gratification, pedigree chum

The IMF said that under an "adverse" scenario, in which the UK left the EU and failed to seal a Norway-style deal, having to fall back on World Trade Organisation rules, the UK would suffer a recession in 2017, with the economy shrinking by 0.8%. The fact that Article 50 may not have been triggered by the start of 2017 and negotiations would probably go on through 2017, then they are talking out of their collective arses, like some other people round here, pal

**** me, they've changed their tune... Pre-referendum, Christine Lagarde (the head of the IMF) said that the impact on the UK economy of a Brexit vote went from "pretty bad to very, very bad" and that there could be a recession. Now, funnily enough, the IMF no longer predicts a recession, as they are forecasting 1.3% growth in 2017. [h=2][/h]

You dont need a trade deal to trade. The EU and consequently the Uk do not have a trade deal with any if the worlds largest economies including USA, China, India etc etc. They do have trade deals with syria and iraq though .... ...yet the EU trades far more with the countries that it doesnt have a deal with, as opposed to the ones it does have a deal with.

Way too simplistic for what is a complex situation, but on face value... The first question entirely depends on the negotiations and eventual outcome. It would be between b and c depending on how much the EU want to cut off their noses... also taking account of the fact that we are net importers when it comes to the EU. The second question is A (eventually) on the basis that the EU has completely failed to get a trade agreement with any of the worlds top 10 economies. The French for example are blocking a deal with south american countires to protect their farmers. When 28 nations have to agree a deal, it makes it incredibly difficult to get a good deal as their are too many vested interests to take account of. Therefore it will be easier to agree deals with the rest of the world. 6 of one, half a dozen of another