Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[derry]

£100b annual surplus published by the national statistics department in June.

[derry]

Is this level delusion common among your Brexity friends? We absolutely did not vote to come out of the single market. The vote was about the EU. There are other, non-EU, countries with access to the single market (and all that implies regarding free movement) - and these were referenced as 'models' by leading Brexiteers throughout the referendum campaign.

 

The government has given no indication that it thinks abandoning the single market is anything other than patently stupid - even Chief Brexiteers like BoJo:

 

 

 

Which of course means that those entitlements apply to any EU citizens wanting to do the same in the UK. Or, in short, free movement.

 

I suspect your reply is going to include another blood-curdling threat that UKIP's one MP will be joined by hundreds of other kipper MPs after an election of RAAAGGGEEE!! if you don't get your way on free movement. But the truth is, you can't have what you want, no matter how the Brexit cake is sliced.

 

You didn't and lost. We did and the sooner the better. In the end we will get a good deal or the Conservative leavers will see this government off. If you lefties were Conservative voters you might have a bit of influence but being Liberal and Labour voters leaves you neutered.

[shurlock]

£100b annual surplus published by the national statistics department in June.

 

Are you sure?

[Whitey Grandad]

£100b annual surplus published by the national statistics department in June.

 

Perhaps you'd like to check again?

 

£61bn deficit with the whole EU, not just Germany. The figures are distorted somewhat by the 'Rotterdam Effect'. This is because a lot of the imports/exports go through Rotterdam which means the EU.

[Trader]

German surplus in 2013, three years ago I know, but surely not currently significantly different

 

https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2014/11/PE14_400_51.html

[Johnny Bognor]

As this is the officially 'way forward' thread, could one of you clever Brexiteers answer the question I've now asked several times?

 

How are we going to square the British government's need to be in the single market with the EU's red line on freedom of movement? Anyone?

.

 

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.

[shurlock]

German surplus in 2013, three years ago I know, but surely not currently significantly different

 

https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2014/11/PE14_400_51.html

 

That's complete gibberish pal - it shines no light on the issue at hand: the UK's trade deficit (goods and services) with the EU.

 

Table 2 UK trade with EU and percentages of world total, 2000 to 2015 gives you what you need.

 

http://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/may2016#trade-in-goods-geographical-analysis

[shurlock]

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.

 

 

And you say you went to the university of life. I have some magic beans I'll trade you. Deal?

[Trader]

So the German Federal Statistical Office publishes complete gibberish on its website.

 

Thanks for that pal.

[shurlock]

So the German Federal Statistical Office publishes complete gibberish on its website.

 

Thanks for that pal.

 

No - it's complete gibberish because you cannot make any statements about the UK's trade deficit with the EU from the figures provided

Edited 20 July, 2016 by shurlock

[badgerx16]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

"Theresa May has said the UK will not begin official negotiations on leaving the EU this year"

[Johnny Bognor]

 

And you say you went to the university of life. I have some magic beans I'll trade you. Deal?

 

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

Edited 20 July, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[CB Fry]

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.

 

As i said the situation was hypothetical, pedigree chum

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Well, personally I think your plan is simply brilliant.

[Johnny Bognor]

Well, personally I think your plan is simply brilliant.

 

Of course it is.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Edited 20 July, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[shurlock]

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.

 

As i said the situation was hypothetical, pedigree chum

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

Because in 5-10 years the UK's share of exports to the EU is going to fall from 45% to 25% as the UK grows exports to other markets. That will give the UK the leverage to negotiate a new deal with the EU?

 

One slight hitch in your masterplan, Baldrick. Trade patterns are like a supertanker - they are slow-moving and cannot be turned around quickly. This is especially true for countries like the UK that are reliant on services export sales. PWC estimates that by 2030 the share of UK exports going to the largest seven emerging economies, assuming they continue to grow and don't crash and burn, will still only be around 13%, up from 9% today.

 

You only get to a position of strength if it's actually credible pal. In its absence the EU would see your endearing little gesture for what it is - the fantastical delusions and cheap talk of a simpleton.

Edited 20 July, 2016 by shurlock

[Lord Duckhunter]

You remoaners need to get your head round the fact that the line in the sand is our UK parliament having control of uk immigration policy . There is no way on earth that the British Government will accept anything other than that , it would mean political suicide. You can argue what " control" is , but anyone who thinks that this Tory government is going to accept free movement of EU nationals after we leave, really is deluded .

[Whitey Grandad]

So the German Federal Statistical Office publishes complete gibberish on its website.

 

Thanks for that pal.

 

Those figures are for Germany as a whole, nothing about UK-Germany trade.

[Whitey Grandad]

You remoaners need to get your head round the fact that the line in the sand is our UK parliament having control of uk immigration policy . There is no way on earth that the British Government will accept anything other than that , it would mean political suicide. You can argue what " control" is , but anyone who thinks that this Tory government is going to accept free movement of EU nationals after we leave, really is deluded .

 

Thereby hangs one horn of a dilemma. In the words of the song, 'you can't have one without the other'.

[Whitey Grandad]

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.

 

A plan so cunning that even Baldrick would be proud of it.

 

There's just one question... ...how do we get this massive increase in exports to the rest of the world, and why aren't we doing it already? (Please don't say that we are being held back by the EU, my poor split sides would never heal up). Of course it's more possible that exports to the EU will fall by tens of billions and we could reach your target of 25% that way, but by that stage we would all be really stony broke and banging on the door begging to be let back in.

[Johnny Bognor]

Because in 5-10 years the UK's share of exports to the EU is going to fall from 45% to 25% as the UK grows exports to other markets. That will give the UK the leverage to negotiate a new deal with the EU?[emoji38]

One slight hitch in your masterplan, Baldrick. Trade patterns are like a supertanker - they are slow-moving and cannot be turned around quickly. This is especially true for countries like the UK that are reliant on services export sales. PWC estimates that by 2030 the share of UK exports going to the largest seven emerging economies, assuming they continue to grow and don't crash and burn, will still only be around 13%, up from 9% today.

 

You only get to a position of strength if it's actually credible pal. In its absence the EU would see your endearing little gesture for what it is - the fantastical delusions and cheap talk of a simpleton.

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

[shurlock]

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

 

A bit optimistic

 

Frankly while we're talking about hypotheticals, there's as much chance that China, the three Brexiters oasis of opportunity, will hit a nasty bump in the road as the Eurozone project will fall apart.

Edited 20 July, 2016 by shurlock

[Johnny Bognor]

A bit optimistic[emoji38]

 

Frankly while we're talking about hypotheticals, there's as much chance that China, the three Brexiters oasis of opportunity, will hit a nasty bump in the road as the Eurozone project will fall apart.

 

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

Edited 20 July, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[shurlock]

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

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

Baldrick, I hope Theresa May has a hotline to you so that you can explain to brexiters the u-turn on free movement and how your cunning plan will, might, could have long-term dividends.

 

Basic common sense says your plan is political pie in the sky.

Edited 20 July, 2016 by shurlock

[Johnny Bognor]

Baldrick, I hope Theresa May has a hotline to you so that you can explain to brexiters the u-turn on free movement and how your cunning plan will, might, could have long-term dividends.

 

Basic common sense says your plan is political pie in the sky.

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

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Thereby hangs one horn of a dilemma. In the words of the song, 'you can't have one without the other'.

 

Aye - there's the rub.

 

Dreams of easily negoiated new international trade deals and of our somehow replacing the EU Single Market (in the medium term anyway) are just so much 'pie in the sky' thinking I'm afraid. So British business will continue to require free access to European markets while the British people will continue to dislike the immigration that goes along with that. And then there is the Scottish question acting as a kind of 'cherry on the cake' of the UK's many post-Bretix problems. So how on earth do we square these various circles - answers on a postcard please!

 

No bugger knows in all honesty but it's almost bound to end up in some kind of fudge, such as EU immigration continuing perhaps but with immigrants needing a firm job offer prior to arrival - or something like that. To even get to that stage will probably involve many years of argument, controversy and uncertainty ahead, which itself will be highly damaging to our economy.

 

The new PM has one hell of a salvage job in front of her.

[badgerx16]

Why are Brexiteers so confident that only the UK's politicos are capable of playing hardball, and that the EU side will grant us everything on our terms because they need us more than we need them ?

[sandwichsaint]

If anybody needs a new dog-food related put down then you can have 'whine-a-lot' absolutely free of charge.

[Batman]

GRS is coming to an end. even those here are starting to get bored of it

[Johnny Bognor]

If anybody needs a new dog-food related put down then you can have 'whine-a-lot' absolutely free of charge.

 

Sorry used Winnalot for Bucktootim already

[Special K]

Why are Brexiteers so confident that only the UK's politicos are capable of playing hardball, and that the EU side will grant us everything on our terms because they need us more than we need them ?

 

There is a new economic policy called "It Will Be Alright" which was rolled out by brexiters after the referendum. It's now been modified slightly to "It Will Be Alright, Stop Bloody Moaning" which is an answer to anyone who questions them as to what exactly trade deals will consist of, who with, what form brexit will take, etc, etc (you know, all the boring but pertinent questions).

 

Some of the less educated brexiters are still rolling out the "we won, you didn't" line in some form of strangulated triumphalist tone, but it is a stock answer to anyone who questions what brexit actually means, thereby closing down any debate.

 

I'm interested to see how the Govnt negotiates trying to keep passporting rights for financial services as part of brexit negotiations. If it fails and the City is weakened, the treasury will see a decent slice out of it's income and we can all look forward to income tax rises and more austerity. Couple this with the huge reduction in EU funded science and health projects and there will be a flight of talented people overseas, too.

 

But I shouldn't worry as, it will be alright.

[ashnats]

interesting article in new scientist, and a positive outcome of Brexit;

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2095482-green-lining-five-ways-brexit-could-be-good-for-the-environment/

 

Basically, if we end up 'doing a norway', we will still be restricted by EU laws, but unable to veto them as we have in the past. this means we will be subject to all of the environment laws that previously we had blocked, for example stopping fracking etc. In addition, a global economic downturn, whilst disastrous for the humans, could turn out to be quite good for reducing our emissions, and ultimately, better for the planet!

 

So there are positives to Brexit. If we are all poorer, perhaps it will encourage a more austere approach to life and we will all become less materialistic. (Bad for Saints though, won't sell many kits, unless there is a bra shortage)

 

If we take it to the extreme, and I'm sure we all recognise the haunting similarities to Hitler's rise in the leave campaign (farage breaking point etc.) - if this does result in more war, reduced resistance to terrorism etc. - then it will also help our population control!

 

I'm coming round to the idea of brexit now! (apart from the devastating impact on Science in the UK, which is already hitting hard and a bit upsetting)

[moonraker]

Brexit has always been full of irony, the victorious swivel eyed loons have won a democratic referendum and now undemocratically tell anyone who questions the wisdom or post Brexit plan to ‘suck it up’, get over it etc. Well in my version of democracy you don’t suck it up or get over it, if you believe in something you carry on debating and fighting. As JB keeps telling us things change, so Brexitiers be prepared, it might not turn out quite how you expected.

[ashnats]

Brexitiers be prepared, it might not turn out quite how you expected.

 

It's not hard to read between the lines of May - e.g. "people want control of free movement from the EU", which I take to mean that we will seek for some kind of control over free movement, but that there will still be free movement, and I would anticipate that this would be in return for access to the free market, which in turn will subject us to EU laws, which in turn will result in exactly what most sane people expected - we leave the EU, we will be poorer, and still subject to bendy bananas, but with no veto or control over which laws are brought in. In the meantime, the damage already done will just result in us being less competitive in certain segments, such as technology and pharma, where a great deal of damage is already done even pre-article 50.

[aintforever]

I don't see why the EU should have such an issue with free movement, the British people have decided that they don't want any old **** turning up in their country and they should respect that and do a deal that is best for Europe trade wise - that is obviously no tariffs as they sell more to us than we do to them.

 

Control of immigration is obviously a red line for the tories, if the EU won't budge then I guess it will be a clean break.

[shurlock]

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

 

You're missing the point Baldrick: of course, u-turns are possible and often desirable, just some aren't politically feasible.

 

Try explaining to the millions who voted leave primarily on the basis of controlling free movement that it won't happen. Rather it might happen in the hazy future if certain hopeful and stark conditions are met

 

And you still think such rarefied claptrap is commonsense pal?

[Whitey Grandad]

I don't see why the EU should have such an issue with free movement, the British people have decided that they don't want any old **** turning up in their country and they should respect that and do a deal that is best for Europe trade wise - that is obviously no tariffs as they sell more to us than we do to them.

 

Control of immigration is obviously a red line for the tories, if the EU won't budge then I guess it will be a clean break.

 

And so is accesss to the Single Market.

 

What we need to do is to convince the other 27 that Britain, as an offshore crowded island, is a special case and as such requires special considerations. This will not be easy.

[Johnny Bognor]

You're missing the point Baldrick: of course, u-turns are possible and often desirable, just some aren't politically feasible.

 

Try explaining to the millions who voted leave primarily on the basis of controlling free movement that it won't happen. Rather it might happen in the hazy future if certain hopeful and stark conditions are met

 

And you still think such rarefied claptrap is commonsense pal?

 

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.

Edited 21 July, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[Whitey Grandad]

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.

 

On the contrary, the conditions were set precisely so that they would never be met. It was a political way of stating that the government was in favour of joining the Euro whilst making sure that we never would.

[shurlock]

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 this is laughable, Baldrick.

 

Exports to the EU will almost certainly fall, though unlikely in line with 2000-2015 trends. Even under a benign scenario, PWC estimates that UK exports shares to the EU will still be around 38% by 2030. As such it will remain the UK's most important market by some distance.

 

But underlying trends are more important than any particular forecast.

 

For instanc, one little remarked trend is that despite ******** about how the "world is our oyster", global trade appears to be slowing. In other words, even if other countries grow faster than the EU, that growth won't necessarily translate into additional demand for imports -whether its for British tat or other countries goods and serivce. Ironically the one region that appears to be bucking this trend happens to be the EU. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp1506.pdf. The FT talks about peak globalisation. Apologies in advance pal if it errs dangerously close to real evidence or analysis.

 

As for exports to BRICs, I assume you googled that factoid and copy and pasted an old Telegraph article from 2013. Emerging markets weathered the financial crisis better than advanced economies and recovered strongly afterwards -in no small part thanks to an unprecedented credit binge in China that lifted regional economies and countries from Russia to Brazil, from Venezuela to Nigeria, which had been on a tear mainly by exporting commodities to the Chinese.

 

However, that was unsustainable and the supercycle is now well and truly over. Keep up. Silly acronyms like BRICs are more likely to be mocked than treated as a glimpse into a brave new world. Excluding China which itself has slowed, the other emerging markets are growing at an average pace of barely above 2%, which is slower than the US. Just look at the recent fortunes of Standard Chartered bank, another emerging market cheerleader.

 

And what does doubling exports actually mean when it is starting from such a low base? It’s not a million miles from the mug who celebrates having 100 times 0 before you break it to him that its still 0. The UK still exports more to Ireland than China and Hong Kong combined. Assuming exports to emerging markets grow (though see above), those rates of growth will slow as they get bigger. As a share of total UK exports, however, they remain a drip in the ocean compared to the UK’s established trading relationships, in particular the EU.

Edited 21 July, 2016 by shurlock

[Johnny Bognor]

Sorry this is laughable, Baldrick.

 

Exports to the EU will almost certainly fall, though unlikely in line with 2000-2015 trends. Even under a benign scenario, PWC estimates that UK exports shares to the EU will still be around 38% by 2030. As such it will remain the UK's most important market by some distance.

 

But underlying trends are more than forecasts.

 

For instanc, one little remarked trend is that despite ******** about how the "world is our oyster", global trade appears to be slowing. In other words, even if other countries grow faster than the EU, that growth won't necessarily translate into additional demand for imports -whether its for British tat or other countries goods and serivce. Ironically the one region that appears to be bucking this trend happens to be the EU. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp1506.pdf. The FT talks about peak globalisation. Apologies in advance pal if it errs dangerously close to real evidence or analysis.

 

As for exports to BRICs, I assume you googled that factoid and copy and pasted an old Telegraph article from 2013. Emerging markets weathered the financial crisis better than advanced economies and recovered strongly afterwards -in no small part thanks to an unprecedented credit binge in China that lifted regional economies and countries from Russia to Brazil, from Venezuela to Nigeria, which had been on a tear mainly by exporting commodities to the Chinese.

 

However, that was unsustainable and the supercycle is now well and truly over. Keep up. Silly acronyms like BRICs are more likely to be mocked than treated as a glimpse into a brave new world. Excluding China which itself has slowed, the other emerging markets are growing at an average pace of barely above 2%, which is slower than the US. Just look at the recent fortunes of Standard Chartered bank, another emerging market cheerleader.

 

And what does doubling exports actually mean when it is starting from such a low base? It’s not a million miles from the mug who celebrates having 100 times 0 before you break it to him that its still 0. The UK still exports more to Ireland than China and Hong Kong combined. Assuming exports to emerging markets grow (though see above), those rates of growth will slow as they get bigger. As a share of total UK exports, however, they remain a drip in the ocean compared to the UK’s established trading relationships, in particular the EU.

 

 

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?

Edited 21 July, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[shurlock]

SInce you have quoted PwC a number of times, 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."

 

“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.

”

 

 

Carry on, me old pedigree chump...

 

Good Baldrick. You're unable to address any of my points. That clears things up.

Edited 21 July, 2016 by shurlock

[derry]

2015 EU / UK deficit £68b. Jan ,Feb and March 2016 £23.9b, April approx. £16b (from HMRC graph ), May £12.7 that makes a deficit on goods of over £52b in the first five months of this year (HMRC). By my reckoning a £100b deficit is reasonable. Additionally exports are decreasing and imports are increasing year on year with the EU so the deficit is increasing. We export about 45% to the EU decreasing but run a surplus with the rest of the world with the remaining 55%. Our trade outside the EU should increase as we make trade agreements outside the EU and especially if the EU fail to agree a deal that includes restricted access to EU citizens.

[shurlock]

2015 EU / UK deficit £68b. Jan ,Feb and March 2016 £23.9b, April approx. £16b (from HMRC graph ), May £12.7 that makes a deficit on goods of over £52b in the first five months of this year (HMRC). By my reckoning a £100b deficit is reasonable. Additionally exports are decreasing and imports are increasing year on year with the EU so the deficit is increasing. We export about 45% to the EU decreasing but run a surplus with the rest of the world with the remaining 55%. Our trade outside the EU should increase as we make trade agreements outside the EU and especially if the EU fail to agree a deal that includes restricted access to EU citizens.

 

Any reason you've excluded services? Not quite Baldrick-levels but...

[Johnny Bognor]

Good Baldrick. You're unable to address any of my points. That clears things up.

 

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.

Edited 21 July, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[Whitey Grandad]

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?

Whilst wer'e at it, what is it about our membership of the EU that prevents businesses from 'building closer trade relationships' with China and India that we can't do already? Could it be, perhaps, that one market is on our doorstep and the other is on the opposite side of the world?

 

But this is beside the point. We need as much trade as possible in order to pay our way in the world. To talk about relative percentages is meaningless except to illustrate the relative importance of each sector. We cannot survivce without the customers who live alongside us, me old china (do you see what I did there? )

[ecuk268]

Aye - there's the rub.

 

Dreams of easily negoiated new international trade deals and of our somehow replacing the EU Single Market (in the medium term anyway) are just so much 'pie in the sky' thinking I'm afraid. So British business will continue to require free access to European markets while the British people will continue to dislike the immigration that goes along with that. And then there is the Scottish question acting as a kind of 'cherry on the cake' of the UK's many post-Bretix problems. So how on earth do we square these various circles - answers on a postcard please!

 

No bugger knows in all honesty but it's almost bound to end up in some kind of fudge, such as EU immigration continuing perhaps but with immigrants needing a firm job offer prior to arrival - or something like that. To even get to that stage will probably involve many years of argument, controversy and uncertainty ahead, which itself will be highly damaging to our economy.

 

The new PM has one hell of a salvage job in front of her.

 

Further complicated by the pro-EU majority in the Commons (at the moment and assuming no General Election) and the Lords which will have to approve any new legislation.

[Verbal]

Any reason you've excluded services? Not quite Baldrick-levels but...

 

As services make up 80% of the British economy, I suspect there's a very good reason indeed he's excluded it.

 

Financial services are a big part of that 80%, and the bad news for him is that the City isn't going to give up passporting rights or other hard-won business - which means access to the single market, which means no limits on freedom of movement.

 

As for what actually happens with manufacturing ith kipperderry's favoured tack of a disorderly exit from the EU and a reliance simply on WTO, here's the Brexiters' favourite rabid economist, Patrick Minford:

 

Over time, if we left the EU, it seems likely that we would mostly eliminate manufacturing, leaving mainly industries such as design, marketing and hi-tech. But this shouldn’t scare us.

 

So almost no manufacturing, which currently employs 2.6 million people. And services, with a present trading surplus with the EU, would be seriously hobbled by no single market access, yet expected to pick up all the slack. It's a ludicrous fantasy, well explained here:

 

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-britain-alone-scenario-how-economists-for-brexit-defy-the-laws-of-gravity/

 

Kipperderry should also be threatening Johnny Bog with dire RAAAGGGEEE!! at the latter's suggestion that the Brexit deal should include for now freedom of movement. That's the problem with Brexiters: there are so many varieties of them, many in simple denial that the referendum question asked wasn't the one they thought it was.

 

Slip sliding away...

[Johnny Bognor]

Whilst wer'e at it, what is it about our membership of the EU that prevents businesses from 'building closer trade relationships' with China and India that we can't do already? Could it be, perhaps, that one market is on our doorstep and the other is on the opposite side of the world?

 

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.

 

But this is beside the point. We need as much trade as possible in order to pay our way in the world. To talk about relative percentages is meaningless except to illustrate the relative importance of each sector. We cannot survivce without the customers who live alongside us,

 

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.

 

me old china (do you see what I did there? )

 

Nice touch!

[Whitey Grandad]

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.

 

I don't think it's the absence of trade deals that is restricting either deals or trade. There are many other aspects such as contract laws, terms of payment, anti-corruption laws. In dealing with Europe there is a common legal framework which underpins confidence.

[shurlock]

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.

 

Dear oh dear, Baldrick. So you have decided to avoid the substance, though its completely relevant as it has a bearing on the extent to which the UK can pivot away from the EU.

 

I didn't deny that the share of UK exports to the EU will fall; only that it won't fundamentally change the importance of the EU as a key market. By 2030, even under favourable conditions, the share of UK exports going to the EU will still be 2x and 3x larger than the share of exports going to the US and the seven largest emerging economies. The UK may have some additional leverage but it will be trivial relative to the UK's ongoing dependence on the EU and the magnitude of the concessions you're hoping to extract. UK exports to the EU as share of UK GDP will continue to tower EU exports to UK as a share of EU GDP. But maybe you're a sucker and soppy romantic for underdog stories.

 

No I didn't discuss the possibility of falling imports from the EU as the effects of currency movements are noisy, cyclical and much harder to predict than deeply established and slow-moving trade patterns. Anybody can play that game -one can easily dream up a scenario whereby the EU boosts exports to emerging markets faster than the UK grows them, weakening the UK's negotiating hand in relative terms (the likes of Germany have been far more successful than the UK has at exporting to places like China).

 

But this is the real world Baldrick. Not a video game you're hopelessly out of your depth at.

Edited 21 July, 2016 by shurlock