Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[John B]

You and doddisalegend are the odd ones suggesting that just because somebody wishes to leave the EU, they shouldn't want to live in any EU member state lest they be labelled a hypocrite. It really does verge on being a bizarre opinion, especially as the EU rules and regulations that they would face in France, are exactly the same as we face in the UK currently. How much a part of somebody's life do those rules and regulations play, compared to the other facets which might influence Lawson's decision, such as climate, price of property, food and drink and a myriad of other things that he might include if he were to describe himself as a Francophile? Is he not allowed to love France, but dislike the EU? Does anybody who dislikes the EU have to dislike all member states? As I said earlier, your position is as stupid as somebody suggesting that if you love the EU so much, you ought to go and live there.

 

Regarding Rees-Mogg, I note that you have educated yourself more than the likes of Corbyn and the left wing press and not falsely accused him of opening an office in Dublin. But you seem to be remarkably naive about investment funds, that there is speculative risk involved, that the value of investments can go down as well as up. His company has funds in many areas of the World. Has he ever denied that Brexit is causing considerable uncertainty? It is actually possible to make money from speculation during periods of uncertainty you know. Soros is an expert in doing that.

 

As for Dyson, I'm sure that you lefties on here lap up every little smear as if it is the gospel truth without question. Here is a different angle:-

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/01/23/sir-james-dyson-not-actions-hypocrite-determined-invest-post/

 

And when it comes to hypocrisy, is it one rule for Dyson and another for Branson?

 

How can this go on? Surely the sane, genuine people will have their day and end the delusion of the Brexiteers

 

Although it seems to me Dyson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nigel Lawson – the leave elite appears to want Brexit for everyone else but themselves

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Meanwhile, in Italy, this article describes their view of the EU:

 

That's their view of the single currency isn't it, rather than the EU as a whole, and I don't think any of us are advocating the single currency.

[Wes Tender]

You said "you lefties", you weren't referring to the media.

 

So let's try again, what makes people who criticise Dyson a leftie?

 

Also - are you seriously linking "The Sun"? That's like discussing paedophiles and putting a clip from Brasseye in to prove your point.

 

Are you really suggesting that categorising "lefties" should not include any element of lumping them together, individuals, parties and media? You shoot yourself in the foot on that score by linking to left wing publications to support your views. And then you go and compound your ignorance by dismissing an opinion purely on the basis of where it was published rather than on the merits of the argument. Feel free to attempt and retrieve your position by debating the opinions expressed in the articles in the Sun or Telegraph and showing where and why you disagree with them.

[Tamesaint]

You and doddisalegend are the odd ones suggesting that just because somebody wishes to leave the EU, they shouldn't want to live in any EU member state lest they be labelled a hypocrite. It really does verge on being a bizarre opinion, especially as the EU rules and regulations that they would face in France, are exactly the same as we face in the UK currently. How much a part of somebody's life do those rules and regulations play, compared to the other facets which might influence Lawson's decision, such as climate, price of property, food and drink and a myriad of other things that he might include if he were to describe himself as a Francophile? Is he not allowed to love France, but dislike the EU? Does anybody who dislikes the EU have to dislike all member states? As I said earlier, your position is as stupid as somebody suggesting that if you love the EU so much, you ought to go and live there.

 

Regarding Rees-Mogg, I note that you have educated yourself more than the likes of Corbyn and the left wing press and not falsely accused him of opening an office in Dublin. But you seem to be remarkably naive about investment funds, that there is speculative risk involved, that the value of investments can go down as well as up. His company has funds in many areas of the World. Has he ever denied that Brexit is causing considerable uncertainty? It is actually possible to make money from speculation during periods of uncertainty you know. Soros is an expert in doing that.

 

As for Dyson, I'm sure that you lefties on here lap up every little smear as if it is the gospel truth without question. Here is a different angle:-

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/01/23/sir-james-dyson-not-actions-hypocrite-determined-invest-post/

 

And when it comes to hypocrisy, is it one rule for Dyson and another for Branson?

 

You have developed a very strange, aggressive tone of writing on this thread. Elsewhere on this forum you write well. Your comments and summaries of important things like football matches are always pertinent and worth reading. For many years you have been an erudite and perceptive writer on this forum. It is just this thread which has turned you a little "odd".

 

For the sake of completeness.

 

1. It is bizarre how you can consider that the EU has no effect on the price of property, food and drink. These wre areas ehere the EU has countless rules and regulations. Once our trade deal with America has been signed we can all enjoy the benefits of chlorinated chicken and GM apples. Yum yum.

 

2. It is remarkable how someone like me became a pension fund trustee and has invested in funds for countless years when I am "remarkably naive" about them.

 

3. I am not a "leftie" however you define that. I have never voted for a left wing party in my life.

 

You are in danger of making yourself look considerably foolish on this thread. Take a chill pill each day, forget about this thread and just concentrate on enjoying the Saints under our new manager.

[Wes Tender]

How can this go on? Surely the sane, genuine people will have their day and end the delusion of the Brexiteers

 

Although it seems to me Dyson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nigel Lawson – the leave elite appears to want Brexit for everyone else but themselves

 

Thanks for your arrogance, labeling anybody who voted Leave as deluded, not sane or genuine people. And then you wonder why Remain lost the vote.

 

And you will no doubt wish to prove your own sanity by explaining why Dyson, J R-M and Lawson want Brexit for everyone else but themselves. It's a bizarre opinion. Do please explain yourself.

[buctootim]

Thanks for your arrogance, labeling anybody who voted Leave as deluded, not sane or genuine people. And then you wonder why Remain lost the vote.

 

And you will no doubt wish to prove your own sanity by explaining why Dyson, J R-M and Lawson want Brexit for everyone else but themselves. It's a bizarre opinion. Do please explain yourself.

Still insisting the Emperor really does have very fine new clothes.

[saint si]

Are you really suggesting that categorising "lefties" should not include any element of lumping them together, individuals, parties and media? You shoot yourself in the foot on that score by linking to left wing publications to support your views. And then you go and compound your ignorance by dismissing an opinion purely on the basis of where it was published rather than on the merits of the argument. Feel free to attempt and retrieve your position by debating the opinions expressed in the articles in the Sun or Telegraph and showing where and why you disagree with them.

 

Ok well let's take a few random points in the article then...

 

1) he thinks that Brexit will mean the UK is more like Singapore. OK cool. So then why move to Singapore?

 

2) he is "only" moving 2 senior jobs to Singapore and not moving production or R&D. Sure but he's moving the HQ in order to take advantage of the favourable tax and global trading conditions that Singapore offers. So again he's not backing the UK to be the free-trading global utopia that he envisages.

 

3) difficulty hiring staff from outside the EU. Nothing to do with the EU and everything to do with UK immigration policy. As the article admits.

 

4) he is frustrated at talent leaving the UK after education ... again the article admits this is not EU's fault. Does anyone think that leaving the EU will mean this talent is more likely to stay?

 

5) this part is some of the most tortured logic i have ever seen:

 

If they speak to Sir James, I am sure he will tell them the same as other entrepreneurs: That they appreciate low taxes, flexible labour laws and efficient regulation.

As things stand, Britain scores quite highly in these areas, which is why — contrary to Remainers’ scare stories — the economy remains healthy and we continue to attract overseas investment.

Businesses desire certain favourable trading conditions... fair enough. According to the very next line, Britain (we're still in the EU, remember!) already offers these conditions which is why we are in such strong shape (bit debatable, but ok). So if that is the case then why leave the country for Singapore? Unless he thinks they will actually worsen in the next few months for some mysterious reason? And what's the push to leave the EU if we already have what we need to attract investment. Oh it's all so very confusing!

 

I completely agree it's not hypocritical to practice globalisation. It is hypocritical to claim that Brexit will position the UK as the hub of globalisation and then not be willing to take the bet on that.

[shurlock]

As Andrew Neil says, with friends like Dyson, Brexiteers don’t really need enemies.

 

Then again he would say that, he’s a leftie according to Les’ iron laws of the universe. Oh wait

 

Les you would embarrass yourself a lot less if you were able to judge cases on their merits, not interpret and mangle everything according your rigid, cultish worldview.

[Wes Tender]

You have developed a very strange, aggressive tone of writing on this thread. Elsewhere on this forum you write well. Your comments and summaries of important things like football matches are always pertinent and worth reading. For many years you have been an erudite and perceptive writer on this forum. It is just this thread which has turned you a little "odd".

 

For the sake of completeness.

 

1. It is bizarre how you can consider that the EU has no effect on the price of property, food and drink. These wre areas ehere the EU has countless rules and regulations. Once our trade deal with America has been signed we can all enjoy the benefits of chlorinated chicken and GM apples. Yum yum.

 

2. It is remarkable how someone like me became a pension fund trustee and has invested in funds for countless years when I am "remarkably naive" about them.

 

3. I am not a "leftie" however you define that. I have never voted for a left wing party in my life.

 

You are in danger of making yourself look considerably foolish on this thread. Take a chill pill each day, forget about this thread and just concentrate on enjoying the Saints under our new manager.

 

You are also normally an erudite contributor to other subjects, but seem to veer towards some very odd positions when discussing Brexit. The condemnation of anybody as a hypocrite should they wish to leave the EU, but live in any country that is a member of the EU is very odd.

 

Your point 1. Where did I claim that the EU has no effect on prices for property, food and drink? I said that Lawson's decision to live there might have been influenced by property prices, a liking for French food, climate, his own perceived values of what constitutes a quality of life for him. He admits to being a Francophile. Is he not therefore allowed to wish us to leave the EU? I could quite happily live in Italy, given family history there. I wouldn't for one second consider it hypocritical because of my stance on Brexit, any more than the 3.5 million immigrants from the EU would feel as if they were hypocrites if they wished to remain living here despite us voting to leave the EU.

 

As for the other two points, your experience with investments funds makes your comments regarding J R-M's company's decision on where to place its funds and the advice to investors in it a little surprising. I note your political voting preference. Brexit has indeed produced some strange bedfellows.

[shurlock]

Ivan Rogers bang on the money again,

 

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/the-futility-of-the-no-deal-brexit-bluff/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[shurlock]

Ah, you don't subscribe to the FT. I couldn't have guessed.

 

But here you go:

 

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/airbus-boss-threatens-pull-company-15724248

 

“If you knock on a door and they have books on their shelves, you can be pretty sure these days they’re not voting Tory”.

 

Quote from a senior Govt minister on the collapsing Tory vote in middle class Remain areas.

[Guided Missile]

Chukka Khan't...

[shurlock]

 

Regarding Rees-Mogg, I note that you have educated yourself more than the likes of Corbyn and the left wing press and not falsely accused him of opening an office in Dublin. But you seem to be remarkably naive about investment funds, that there is speculative risk involved, that the value of investments can go down as well as up. His company has funds in many areas of the World. Has he ever denied that Brexit is causing considerable uncertainty? It is actually possible to make money from speculation during periods of uncertainty you know. Soros is an expert in doing that.

 

Les. Don't accuse others of naivety when you patently don't have a clue. Its not a good look pal. Glasshouses and all that, especially when Tamesaint is broadly correct.

 

Insofar as JRM has mentioned uncertainty, he's not speaking in investment terms - 'speculative risk' to use your dopey expression. He's talking about regulatory uncertainty over the UK's future relationship with the EU and the concerns that asset managers might be cut off from EU-based investors after Brexit if the UK loses its passporting rights. Of course, this is not only the reason to launch a replica product range in Ireland -tax considerations also make it very attractive to clients; but it is clearly an important factor as the likes of L&G, M&G and Threadneedle Columbia have shown.

 

In other words, this has nothing to do with investments going up and down. Its about being able to access and serve European clients -and anything that potentially makes this more difficult is pure downside.

Edited 24 January, 2019 by shurlock

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Thanks for your arrogance, labeling anybody who voted Leave as deluded, not sane or genuine people. And then you wonder why Remain lost the vote.

 

And you will no doubt wish to prove your own sanity by explaining why Dyson, J R-M and Lawson want Brexit for everyone else but themselves. It's a bizarre opinion. Do please explain yourself.

 

So you're saying people voted leave because they were described as stupid by the remain voters?

 

So (and stop me if I have misunderstood), in your opinion people voted Brexit as a **** you.

 

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face - no wonder Brexiteers are classified as monumentally stupid.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Are you really suggesting that categorising "lefties" should not include any element of lumping them together, individuals, parties and media? You shoot yourself in the foot on that score by linking to left wing publications to support your views. And then you go and compound your ignorance by dismissing an opinion purely on the basis of where it was published rather than on the merits of the argument. Feel free to attempt and retrieve your position by debating the opinions expressed in the articles in the Sun or Telegraph and showing where and why you disagree with them.

 

Financial Times isn't left, you plum. It's a supporter of Globalism - there is nothing less socialist than that.

 

And I'm definitely not a "leftie".

[Unbelievable Jeff]

“If you knock on a door and they have books on their shelves, you can be pretty sure these days they’re not voting Tory”.

 

Quote from a senior Govt minister on the collapsing Tory vote in middle class Remain areas.

 

Sounds very much like me...they've lost my vote over the past 4 years.

[doddisalegend]

Sounds very much like me...they've lost my vote over the past 4 years.

Me to voted Tory all my adult life bar a brief flirtation with the liberals at the last GE but they can **** right off now. Don't really know where that leaves me the liberals are a busted flush, I won't vote for the current incarnation of the Tory party and I'd rather eat my own testicles than vote for a Corbyn run Labour party....

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[Lord Duckhunter]

Lefties getting their knickers in a twist over Lawson should be good Europeans and subscribe to Languedoc Living. Looks like our greatest living chancellor is moving back to Blighty after Brexit.

 

http:// http://www.languedocliving.com/nigel-lawson-is-leaving-france-news-10822.html

[buctootim]

Lived there for 17 years. Let’s see if it actually happens or it’s just an empty announcement rushed out to try and dodge the accusations of hypocrisy.

 

Ps he was a crap Chancellor. A debt fuelled consumer and housing bubble swiftly followed by the inevitable and predictable crash.

Edited 24 January, 2019 by buctootim

[OldNick]

“If you knock on a door and they have books on their shelves, you can be pretty sure these days they’re not voting Tory”.

 

Quote from a senior Govt minister on the collapsing Tory vote in middle class Remain areas.

I suggest the tablets have taken the place of many bookcases.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I think he got fed up listening to Légion d’honneur holder Grievence’s radio show.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mrfahaji]

“If you knock on a door and they have books on their shelves, you can be pretty sure these days they’re not voting Tory”.

 

Quote from a senior Govt minister on the collapsing Tory vote in middle class Remain areas.

 

Who are they voting for then? Not a flippant remark - it feels like there aren't any legitimate parties to vote for any more unless you have extreme views (I'm not a Tory voter, but there's a similar predicament facing Labour at the moment, while the Lib Dems has become something of a non-entity).

[hypochondriac]

“If you knock on a door and they have books on their shelves, you can be pretty sure these days they’re not voting Tory”.

 

Quote from a senior Govt minister on the collapsing Tory vote in middle class Remain areas.

And yet despite that Corbyn still can't command any sort of majority in polls. Absolutely pathetic from him.

[Lord Duckhunter]

When the “people’s. vote’ leaders get back from Davos I’m sure Wollaston, Chucka, Soubry and the other losers will be called in for a conversation without coffee.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Brilliant performance by James Delingpole on This Week, selling the benefits of no deal. Car crash TV at its finest.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/amphtml/brexit-buddies-remainers-less-tolerant-leavers-says-yougov-poll-135647765.html?fbclid=IwAR3Nq0Pvx-u4xsMjS6rDZd86MF0I4TZkezq8viquRmgXJVFfg9GnfTu-4p4&guccounter=1

 

A third of Remainers would have a problem if a close relative married a Brexiteer.

 

I'm surprised it's not higher TBH.

[badgerx16]

Brilliant performance by James Delingpole on This Week, selling the benefits of no deal. Car crash TV at its finest.

He hasn't got a f+++ing clue. That wasn't a car crash, it was a complete train derailment, over the side of a bridge across a 1000ft deep ravine.

Edited 26 January, 2019 by badgerx16

[Unbelievable Jeff]

20 years of fake news headlines about the EU...

 

Enjoy (or maybe despair):

 

EC regulations to ban playgrounds – Daily Express

Rolling acres outlawed by Brussels – The Telegraph

EU to scrap British exams – Sunday Express

Obscure EU law halting the sale of English oak seeds – Mail on Sunday

EU may try to ban sweet and toy ads – The Times

EU to tell British farmers what they can grow – Daily Mail

EU ‘Bans Boozing’ – Daily Star

Light ale to be forced to change its name by Eurocrats – Daily Mail

EU fanatics to be forced to sing dire anthem about EU ‘Motherland’ – The Sun

British apple trees facing chop by EU – The Times

EC plan to ban noisy toys – Sunday People

EU to ban bagpipes and trapeze artists – The Sun

Children to be banned from blowing up balloons, under EU safety rules – Daily Telegraph

Straight cucumbers – The Sun

Curved bananas banned by Brussels bureaucrats – The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express

Brussels bans barmaids from showing cleavage – The Sun, Daily Telegraph

Rumpole’s wig to scrapped by EU – Mail on Sunday

Church bells silenced by fear of EU law – Daily Telegraph

Motorists to be charged to drive in city centres under EU plans – Daily Telegraph

EU to stop binge drinking by slapping extra tax on our booze – The Sun

Brandy butter to be renamed ‘brandy spreadable fat’ – The European

British loaf of bread under threat from EU – Daily Mail

Truckers face EU ban on fry-ups – The Sun

EU to ban Union Flag from British meat packs – Daily Express

EU seeks to outlaw 60 dog breeds – Europa News Agency

Double-decker buses to be banned – Daily Telegraph

EU bans eating competition cakes – Timesonline

Now EU officials want control of your CANDLES – Daily Express

21-gun salutes are just too loud, Brussels tells the Royal Artillery – Mail on Sunday

Brussels threatens charity shops and car boot sales – Daily Mail

Plot to axe British number plates for standardised EU design – Daily Express

Women to be asked intimate details about sex lives in planned EU census – Daily Express

British cheese faces extinction under EU rules – PA News

EU meddlers ban kids on milk rounds – The Sun, The Telegraph

British chocolate to be renamed ‘vegelate’ under EU rules – Daily Mail

EU to ban church bells – Daily Telegraph

British film producers warn of new EU threat to industry – The Independent

Kilts to be branded womenswear by EU – Daily Record

EU to ban double decker buses – Daily Mail

Cod to be renamed ‘Gadus’ thanks to EU – Daily Mail

Brussels to restrict drinking habits of Britain’s coffee lovers – Daily Express

EU responsible for your hay fever – Daily Mail, The Times

Condom dimensions to be harmonised – Independent on Sunday

EU wants to BAN your photos of the London Eye – Daily Express

Corgis to be banned by EU – Daily Mail

EU forcing cows to wear nappies – Daily Mail

Eurocrats to ban crayons and colouring pencils – The Sun

Smoky bacon crisps face EU ban – Sunday Times

EU outlaws teeth whitening products – Daily Mail

Domain names – ‘.uk’ to be replaced by ‘.eu’ – Daily Mail

Brussels to ban HGV drivers from wearing glasses – The Times

New eggs cannot be called eggs – Daily Mail

EU to ban selling eggs by the dozen – Daily Mail

UK to be forced to adopt continental two pin plug – Daily Star, Daily Mail

EU targets traditional Sunday roast – Sun on Sunday

English Channel to be re-named ‘Anglo-French Pond’ – Daily Mail

Brussels to force EU flag on England shirts – Daily Mail

EU orders farmers to give toys to pigs – The Times

Firemen’s poles outlawed by EU – Daily Mail

Euro ban on food waste means swans cannot be fed – The Observer

Noise regulations to force football goers to wear earplugs – The Sun

Traditional Irish funeral under threat from EU – Daily Telegraph, The Times

EU to ban high-heel shoes for hairdressers – Daily Express

Commission to force fishermen to wear hairnets – Daily Telegraph

Brussels to ban herbal cures – Daily Express

Bureaucrats declare Britain is “not an island”– the Guardian

EU bid to ban life sentences for murderers – Daily Express

New EU map makes Kent part of France – Sunday Telegraph

EU tells Welsh how to grow their leeks – The Times

EU to ban lollipop ladies’ sticks – News of the World

EU plot to rename Trafalgar Square & Waterloo station – Daily Express

UK milk ‘pinta’ threatened by Brussels – The Sun

EU bans ‘mince’ pies – Daily Mail

Eurocrats say Santa must be a woman – The Sun

Now EU crackpots demand gypsy MPs – Daily Express

Brussels to outlaw mushy peas – The Sun, Daily Mail, Telegraph, Times

Brussels says shellfish must be given rest breaks on journeys – The Times

Pets must be pressure cooked after death – Sunday Telegraph

EU puts speed limit on children’s roundabouts – Daily Express

2-for-1 bargains to be scrapped by EU – Daily Mirror

EU madness: chat up bar girl and pub will be fined – Daily Star

Queen to be forced to get her own tea by EU – The Sun

EU tells women to hand in worn-out sex toys – The Sun

British rhubarb to be straight – The Sun

EU to ban rocking horses – The Sun

Scotch whisky rebranded a dangerous chemical by EU – Daily Telegraph

Brussels ban on pints of shandy – The Times

“High up” signs to be put on mountains – BBC

Euronotes cause impotence – Daily Mail

EU to ban under 16-year-olds from using Facebook – Daily Mail

Strawberries must be oval – The Sun

EU orders swings to be pulled down – Daily Express

Tea bags banned from being recycled – BBC

British lav to be replaced with Euro-loo – The Sun

Unwanted Valentine’s cards to be defined as sexual harrasment – Daily Telegraph

Bosses to be told what colour carpets to buy by EU – Daily Star

EU says British yoghurt to be renamed ‘Fermented Milk Pudding’ – Sunday Mirror

EU to ban zipper trousers – The Sun

 

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/see-20-years-of-fake-news-about-eu-by-uk-press-vote-for-your-favourite-here/

[LGTL]

It’s almost like there’s an ulterior motive...

 

It’s funny, you go to Ireland and drive across one of their lovely new motorways, there are always small signs detailing how it was funded partly through EU subsidies. I’ve always thought we’re too proud in this country to ever recognise any of the good it has done.

 

Meanwhile, we’re happy to write, and believe, the absolute nonsense above.

[Batman]

It’s almost like there’s an ulterior motive...

 

It’s funny, you go to Ireland and drive across one of their lovely new motorways, there are always small signs detailing how it was funded partly through EU subsidies. I’ve always thought we’re too proud in this country to ever recognise any of the good it has done.

 

Meanwhile, we’re happy to write, and believe, the absolute nonsense above.

 

Isn’t it essentially our own money anyway?

[RedArmy]

6 months ago that list would have included a story about an EU Army.

[badgerx16]

6 months ago that list would have included a story about an EU Army.

So 1 item that may turn out, in the future, to become reality outweighs that list of nearly 100 outright fabrications, most of which would have been on front pages, in large typeface ?

[Guided Missile]

He hasn't got a f+++ing clue. That wasn't a car crash, it was a complete train derailment, over the side of a bridge across a 1000ft deep ravine.

Typical clueless ad hominem attack. It is always better to tackle the ball, rather than the player.

 

Now, rather than listening to James Delingpole, who is obviously not an expert on tariffs, or even worse, Dominic Grieve, QC, who you'd go to, if you wanted legal advice on Occupational Health & Safety ("i.e. an ambulance chaser"), I have always listened to those best qualified.

 

I have personal experience with 8, New Square, a chambers who specialise in IP law. In particular, to advance this particular argument, the go-to guy there is Martin Howe, QC, whose wide-ranging EU law practice focuses on free movement of goods and services and EU regulatory law. So, for those that are interested, he published an interesting article here, back in August, 2018, which explained why the UK would be better off under WTO rules.

 

Introduction:

Over the past couple of weeks, the media have been full of lurid scare stories about what will happen if the UK leaves the EU on WTO terms, because negotiations with the EU do not result in a withdrawal agreement. One of the most ridiculous and unjustified of these absurd scare stories is that it will lead to higher prices, and even shortages, of foods and medicines. In the Sunday Times on 12 August 2018, under the headline “No deal will hike food bills by 12%”, it was reported that ‘senior executives from the big four supermarkets’ had claimed that a ‘no deal’ Brexit‘ would force up the price of the average weekly food basket by as much as 12%.’

 

This prediction was apparently based on the suggestion that ‘the biggest tariffs on imports from the EU could include cheese, up by 44%, beef, up by 40%, and chicken, up 22%’. This suggestion is therefore based on a misconception which is so widespread and so often repeated that I shall call it “the tariff delusion.” That delusion is that when we leave the EU, WTO rules will require the UK to take the current tariffs which the EU at present forces us to impose on imports from the rest of the world, and impose them on imports from the EU as well. That delusion is simply not true. The UK is currently in the process of ‘rectifying’ its tariff schedules at the WTO by copy-and-pasting the EU’s current schedules. But those schedules do not specify the tariffs which we will have to charge on our imports: they specify the maximum level of tariffs which we are allowed to charge. We will be fully free to charge lower levels of tariffs, or zero tariffs, if we feel fit.

 

What WTO rules do require, under the so-called “Most Favoured Nation” (MFN) principle, is that whatever tariffs we decide to set must be charged equally to everyone, with the exception of countries with which we have customs union or free trade agreements. In those cases, zero tariffs must be charged on substantially all trade in goods under Article XXIV of GATT. Since we will be leaving the EU’s customs union in a “no deal” scenario without a replacement free trade agreement, we will have to charge the same UK MFN tariffs on imports from the EU as on imports from the rest of the world. But those UK MFN tariffs can be lower than the current EU-mandated tariffs or zero if we want, on some or even all categories of goods. So under a rational policy, food prices – as well as prices for other basics such as clothing, textiles, and footwear – will go down, not up. In fact, it would be an act of lunatic self-harming idiocy for any British government, even a government as stupid as the present administration, to adopt and apply the EU’s external tariffs to imports from the EU as well as on imports from the rest of the world.

It's worth reading the whole article. He normally charges £5,000 a day, for advice

 

Conclusion:

The positive advantages of leaving the EU without a trade agreement and without a withdrawal or transition agreement are enormous. Given the Prime Minister’s strange decision to abandon of any attempt to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU, it is the only way forward which fulfills the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. It hands back control and it leads to huge economic benefits.

[shurlock]

6 months ago that list would have included a story about an EU Army.

 

No doubt the same type of story that would omit the fact that the UK had no obligation to join or be part of an EU army. You’re a special little fella.

[shurlock]

Typical clueless ad hominem attack. It is always better to tackle the ball, rather than the player.

 

Now, rather than listening to James Delingpole, who is obviously not an expert on tariffs, or even worse, Dominic Grieve, QC, who you'd go to, if you wanted legal advice on Occupational Health & Safety ("i.e. an ambulance chaser"), I have always listened to those best qualified.

 

I have personal experience with 8, New Square, a chambers who specialise in IP law. In particular, to advance this particular argument, the go-to guy there is Martin Howe, QC, whose wide-ranging EU law practice focuses on free movement of goods and services and EU regulatory law. So, for those that are interested, he published an interesting article here, back in August, 2018, which explained why the UK would be better off under WTO rules.

 

Introduction:

 

It's worth reading the whole article. He normally charges £5,000 a day, for advice

 

Conclusion:

 

You're thicker than a butcher's turd.

 

Martin Howe's a lawyer, not an economist and is simply rehearsing the same staid economic arguments for zero tariffs peddled by Patrick Minford and co. That work, its methodology and its claims, has been rubbished by every serious economist. Perhaps little Martin should stay in his own lane, though he should definitely avoid interviews with Adam Boulton and Sky News more generally

 

Trust you to be attracted to utter mediocrity.

Edited 27 January, 2019 by shurlock

[badgerx16]

 

Now, rather than listening to James Delingpole, who is obviously not an expert on tariffs, ......

 

So why was he sitting there being totally trampled over, on the subject of tariffs ? Why didn't he follow the basic rule, "Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".

[shurlock]

So why was he sitting there being totally trampled over, on the subject of tariffs ? Why didn't he follow the basic rule, "Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".

 

You know that someone has had a mare when you could have made a better case than them - despite holding diametrically opposing views.

 

Thus in Delingpole's case, he could have pointed out that unilaterally cutting or eliminating tariffs doesn't necessarily reduce others incentives to do a FTA since improving access to markets in respect of non-tariff issues is bigger prize for prospective trade partners. Brillo's line of questioning was not particularly challenging.

 

I suspect poor old GM is a fan of Delingpole -no doubt he shares his views on climate change- and is feeling a bit butt hurt that his boy took a beating

[RedArmy]

No doubt the same type of story that would omit the fact that the UK had no obligation to join or be part of an EU army. You’re a special little fella.

Not like you to miss the point entirely. Wally.

[Verbal]

6 months ago that list would have included a story about an EU Army.

 

Also a thing that hasn't happened.

 

You seem to have a thing about Armies (sic), Mr Army.

[Guided Missile]

A more recent paper that describes the benefits of a "no deal" Brexit can be found here.

 

I was particularly interested in the economic analysis of the potential opportunities described by Roger Bootle. He is one of the City of London’s best-known economists. He is Chairman of Capital Economics, which he founded in 1999, and an Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries. From 1998 to 2017 Roger was a Specialist Adviser to the House of Commons Treasury Committee. He was formerly Group Chief Economist of HSBC and, under the previous Conservative government, he was appointed one of the Chancellor’s panel of Independent Economic Advisers, the so-called ‘Wise Men’. In 2012, Roger and a team from Capital Economics won the Wolfson Prize, the second biggest prize in Economics after the Nobel.

He appears to agree with Martin Howe, QC, who I quoted above.

 

If following our departure without a trade deal with the EU we were to decide to impose tariffs on imports from the EU, possibly causing UK prices to go up, it would be open to the UK Treasury to take offsetting action to counteract the blip in inflation and maintain consumer real incomes. We could unilaterally decide to reduce tariffs on selected goods, eg, those where there is no UK production, such as oranges. Alternatively, the Treasury could announce a temporary cut in VAT, funded by the new tariffs.It is important to recognise it is not necessarily a given that prices would rise significantly in the short-term. We import large amounts from non-EU countries and these prices would not change, thereby putting competitive price pressures on EU producers exporting similar products to the UK. In the longer-term, elimination of EU protectionist barriers would create a downward pressure on UK prices.

 

All in all, a well balanced article from a number of perspectives and a relief from the usual uninformed cr@p from the liberal media.

[Tamesaint]

A more recent paper that describes the benefits of a "no deal" Brexit can be found here.

 

I was particularly interested in the economic analysis of the potential opportunities described by Roger Bootle. He is one of the City of London’s best-known economists. He is Chairman of Capital Economics, which he founded in 1999, and an Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries. From 1998 to 2017 Roger was a Specialist Adviser to the House of Commons Treasury Committee. He was formerly Group Chief Economist of HSBC and, under the previous Conservative government, he was appointed one of the Chancellor’s panel of Independent Economic Advisers, the so-called ‘Wise Men’. In 2012, Roger and a team from Capital Economics won the Wolfson Prize, the second biggest prize in Economics after the Nobel.

He appears to agree with Martin Howe, QC, who I quoted above.

 

 

 

All in all, a well balanced article from a number of perspectives and a relief from the usual uninformed cr@p from the liberal media.

 

For every economist that supports Brexit, there is at least one, if not more, that can explain how it makes no sense.

 

Whenever the Brexit deniers speak however it is decried as "Project Fear".

[shurlock]

For every economist that supports Brexit, there is at least one, if not more, that can explain how it makes no sense.

 

Whenever the Brexit deniers speak however it is decried as "Project Fear".

 

Let's be clear, Bootle is in a minority. Its also worth noting that notwithstanding a generous donation from the CEO of Next, nobody takes the Wolfson Prize seriously and nobody serious enters the competition. Its hardly suprising that its run out of a small centre-right thinktank.

 

On a superficial level, there are obvious benefits to lower tariffs - the question is how large the benefits are and whether they offset the economic costs of leaving the EU. Apart from agreement on this banally basic point, Bootle's and Howe's analysis and assumptions are quite different -not surprisingly that is completely lost on thicker-than-a-butchers-turd GM who exudes all the understanding of a man who has made it at least halfway down a WTO, Roger Bootle or Liverpool model Wiki page

 

When you take into account i) the average tariff applied on the types of goods that the UK imports (~3%) ii) the total share of households’ final consumption spending affected by these tariffs (just over a quarter) and iii) assume that tariffs are unlikely to be cut in goods where there is high UK production (as Bootle does), the gains from eliminating tariffs are minuscule.

 

The IFS has crunched the numbers -Bootle hasn't- and estimates that tariff elimination would reduce prices only by at most 0.4%. This figure itself is conservative as it assumes that these savings are 100% passed through to consumers and ignores the potentially much higher increases in price that would accompany any likely depreciation in the pound in the wake of no deal.

 

Bootle's piece is muddled in other places too - at times, embarrassingly so. To emphasise the fact that the rate of increase of many non-EU members exports into the Single Market is greater than the rate of increase of exports from most Single Market members to other Single Market members is the type of f**kwittery you would only expect here. To adapt an analogy made elsewhere: its like praising the height of a child compared to Peter Crouch. After all Peter Crouch hasn't grown in the last 6 years whereas the growth in height of a small child has been 100%. Who's taller?

 

Needless to say, Minford is all on his own in the bat**** mental stakes. Its only when you get into the details of his methodology that you're able to understand this. That's too much to ask from bluffers like Martin Howe, Jacob Rees Moog, James Delingpole and the swivels on this thread.

Edited 27 January, 2019 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

You really do find it totally impossible to respond to a post from anybody who disagrees with you without resorting to the most puerile and infantile insults, Shurlock. Please do accept that you have a problem and go and seek professional psychiatric advice. But when you do so, I advise that you don't embarrass yourself by insulting the professional expert's credentials, as much as you will believe that you are capable of lecturing him on how to do his job.

[shurlock]

You really do find it totally impossible to respond to a post from anybody who disagrees with you without resorting to the most puerile and infantile insults, Shurlock. Please do accept that you have a problem and go and seek professional psychiatric advice. But when you do so, I advise that you don't embarrass yourself by insulting the professional expert's credentials, as much as you will believe that you are capable of lecturing him on how to do his job.

 

Afternoon Les

 

Did you see the other FT article the other week?

 

https://www.ft.com/content/e38d7e8c-1f06-11e9-b126-46fc3ad87c65

 

It cites the latest ONS figures on UK exports. Contrary to your brexitcentral article, it finds that the UK exports have become even more reliant on the EU vs. rest of the world since the referendum. Indeed the figures are pretty much in line with my earlier calculations (post 8172), mindful the dataset I was using was slightly different. You learn something on this forum everyday, don't you pal.

[Guided Missile]

For every economist that supports Brexit, there is at least one, if not more, that can explain how it makes no sense.

 

Whenever the Brexit deniers speak however it is decried as "Project Fear".

You realise that Brexit won, mate? I think you're the guy in denial. The analyses I quoted were comparing no deal with Mays deal.

 

Oh, and a second referendum hope you were clinging to has been flushed down the pan, so best face it. We're leaving...

[badgerx16]

The quote in GM's post states "If following our departure without a trade deal with the EU we were to decide to impose tariffs on imports from the EU, possibly causing UK prices to go up,.....", and goes on to say " We import large amounts from non-EU countries and these prices would not change,...... ". Is not the second part incorrect, as under WTO rules we would be obliged to impose exactly the same level of tariffs on non-EU imports ?

[Guided Missile]

Is not the second part incorrect, as under WTO rules we would be obliged to impose exactly the same level of tariffs on non-EU imports ?

After Brexit and in the event of a no deal, the UK will not have to charge tariffs on anything unless we want to. So, in the case of oranges, for instance, where we have no domestic production, why would we impose tariffs to protect Spanish growers? We will eliminate the EU imposed 16% tariff on oranges and pay less to the most efficient orange growers, probably those from Brazil or Florida unless the Spanish are more efficient.

I know this freedom may be difficult for you to understand, but your condition is known as the Stockholm Syndrome, which you and shurlock will recover from eventually.

[badgerx16]

After Brexit and in the event of a no deal, the UK will not have to charge tariffs on anything unless we want to. So, in the case of oranges, for instance, where we have no domestic production, why would we impose tariffs to protect Spanish growers? We will eliminate the EU imposed 16% tariff on oranges and pay less to the most efficient orange growers, probably those from Brazil or Florida unless the Spanish are more efficient.

I know this freedom may be difficult for you to understand, but your condition is known as the Stockholm Syndrome, which you and shurlock will recover from eventually.

I'm not trying to be difficult, nor am I looking for an argument, but I thought that a 'no deal' Brexit automatically meant WTO rules, in which case we must apply tariffs equally across the board; we would not be able to set different levels for EU and non-EU trade due to MFN rules.

( Now, if you can post a sensible response explaining where I am mis-understanding things, and you can avoid your default position of always adding an insult, I would appreciate the opportuninty to better understand the situation ).

 

EDIT;

After re-reading the quoted text, I think I understand where my misunderstanding arose. However, being an IT security consultant with a degree in Microbiology, economics is not my specialist subject of choice.

Edited 27 January, 2019 by badgerx16

[Guided Missile]

( Now, if you can post a sensible response explaining where I am mis-understanding things, and you can avoid your default position of always adding an insult, I would appreciate the opportuninty to better understand the situation ).

It's hard not to insult you when the WTO rules as they apply post Brexit are explained in the links I posted, but as you can't be bothered to read them, I'll explain. We can apply whatever tariffs we chose, up to the maximum allowed under WTO rules. Whatever level we chose, we have to impose the same tariff levels to MFN's (Most Favoured Nations), unless it is with a nation with which we have a trade agreement, where the tariffs are determined in that agreement.

Countries usually impose tariffs when they seek to protect their domestic producers.

In the case of oranges, there is no reason to impose the EU level of tariffs on imported oranges, for instance, which means that we charge zero tariffs on Spanish oranges, as we do at the moment, but we then have to charge zero to MFN's which are likely to have more efficient orange producers, thus our costs go down.

So, we are leaving an area that is laughingly called a free trade area, when it should be called a protectionist trade area, which uses both tariffs and regulatory barriers to protect, for instance, inefficient French farmers.

The cheaper food we will enjoy will benefit the low income families more than the middle class liberals like you. It is just, like you, most are not clever enough to see through the EU and believe all they read in the Guardian.

Now, back on ignore for being lazy and thick....

[shurlock]

Spanish oranges