Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The referendum's impact on the food prices the British people must pay has moved beyond the 'remains to be seen' category and into the world of cold hard fact - as anyone who is even remotely aware of the Tesco v Unilever story in the press this week really should know. That but is but one early sign of the shape of things to come I think.

 

Even our more notoriously 'fact averse' contributors on here will be hard put to deny that as the Pound falls price of all UK imports must rise - presuming that have some minimal grasp on basic economic theory.

[CB Fry]

Come on then, Shorluck, me old mucker, answer my question and furnish me with the source of the figures. It was a simple request, so it shouldn't have been a problem for somebody of the intellect you assume yourself to have.

It's all there on a blog by John Redwood.

[TwoPints]

Errrrrr two pints was trying to give it the big one how 3000 jobs were lost as a result of brexit.

 

I don't recall giving it 'the big one'. I merely posted a quote from an article I read recently, you got all upset about it started calling people donuts and suggested I do more research, which I did and came across three similar articles. You found different ones. Whether these particular job losses were as a direct result of brexit or not is a bit of a moot point as there will be plenty of others before we're out of Europe.

 

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

[TwoPints]

Errrr who brought up the 3000 job losses to make a political point, which turned out to be false????? You know, 'used' people who were losing their jobs and could not pay their mortgages??? Delighting in the fact that people were losing their jobs thanks to brexit, so that Brexiters could be blamed for something???

 

You really are a piece of work aren't you. I showed no delight in people losing their jobs at all. I fear many more people will lose their jobs from all of this. It's a travesty that could so easily have been avoided.

[Batman]

You really are a piece of work aren't you. I showed no delight in people losing their jobs at all. I fear many more people will lose their jobs from all of this. It's a travesty that could so easily have been avoided.

 

but you did say they will because of BREXIT?

[moonraker]

Errrr who brought up the 3000 job losses to make a political point, which turned out to be false????? You know, 'used' people who were losing their jobs and could not pay their mortgages??? Delighting in the fact that people were losing their jobs thanks to brexit, so that Brexiters could be blamed for something???

 

As i explained, the cuts were made to take account of the way we now do our banking. So unless you only use cash, cheques and the bank tellers, you are part of the problem. In fact, the increased use of technology everywhere is destroying jobs, so unless you're a techno phobe, you might want to take a hard long look in the mirror.

 

As we're talking about jobs and the EU, what are your thoughts on the tens of millions of young people unemployed, thanks to the political obsession with the Euro and the eventual march towards the european super state?? The prospects for youngsters across the southern states is pretty bleak... this point seems to have passed the remainers by.

 

Anyway, as I have stated many times, I want the UK to prosper, in or out, unlike many remainers who simply want the UK to fail, just to be proved right. Sounds pretty facetious to me. Oh and in failing, that means people losing their jobs and struggling to pay their mortgages. Are you one of those types???

What point are you trying to make with your obsession with unemployment in selected countries in th EU, this thread is about the UK where as a member of the EU we have high levels of employment, hence we require the current levels of immigration to fuel what was until the referendum a strong economy. National borders are not the issue as evidenced by the disparity in regional employment levels. No amount of suck it up rhetoric will alter the fact we have inflicted a massive amount of self harm.

[TwoPints]

but you did say they will because of BREXIT?

Eh?!

 

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

[Johnny Bognor]

What point are you trying to make with your obsession with unemployment in selected countries in th EU, this thread is about the UK where as a member of the EU we have high levels of employment, hence we require the current levels of immigration to fuel what was until the referendum a strong economy. National borders are not the issue as evidenced by the disparity in regional employment levels. No amount of suck it up rhetoric will alter the fact we have inflicted a massive amount of self harm.

I guess it comes down to not wanting to be part of a club that has shown complete disregard for tens of millions of young people.. all for the sake of power

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Johnny Bognor]

I don't recall giving it 'the big one'. I merely posted a quote from an article I read recently, you got all upset about it started calling people donuts and suggested I do more research, which I did and came across three similar articles. You found different ones. Whether these particular job losses were as a direct result of brexit or not is a bit of a moot point as there will be plenty of others before we're out of Europe.

 

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

It was noting to do with brexit. The decision was taken, as evidenced by the chief exec, before the referendum. ..

 

There may well be losses due to brexit but there will be gains too.

 

How it pans out, nobody knows. In the medium to long term I happen to think it will be OK. The uncertainty in the short term, is problematic, but it's not helped by people peddling untruths

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[scotty]

The referendum's impact on the food prices the British people must pay has moved beyond the 'remains to be seen' category and into the world of cold hard fact - as anyone who is even remotely aware of the Tesco v Unilever story in the press this week really should know. That but is but one early sign of the shape of things to come I think.

 

Even our more notoriously 'fact averse' contributors on here will be hard put to deny that as the Pound falls price of all UK imports must rise - presuming that have some minimal grasp on basic economic theory.

 

It also means our exports are more competitive, so it balances out for the overall uk economy. When that well-known staunch anti-european Michael Heseltine was in thatchers cabinet, he was forever banging on about the pound being too strong and that it would be far better for the UK economy if it weakened against other major currencies. I'd guess that he might have some slight grasp of basic economic theory given that he served as president of the board of trade and deputy prime minister. In fact, and I'm sticking my neck out here, I'd also wager that he probably knows more about economic theory than any of us.

[Johnny Bognor]

The referendum's impact on the food prices the British people must pay has moved beyond the 'remains to be seen' category and into the world of cold hard fact - as anyone who is even remotely aware of the Tesco v Unilever story in the press this week really should know. That but is but one early sign of the shape of things to come I think.

 

Even our more notoriously 'fact averse' contributors on here will be hard put to deny that as the Pound falls price of all UK imports must rise - presuming that have some minimal grasp on basic economic theory.

 

According to the beloved IMF, continously quoted by remainers, the pound was up to 20% over valued.

 

At some point this would have had to have changd to stop long term damage to our economy.

 

It has changed and brexit was the catalyst, but it's naive to think that the pre-referendum level would have been sustained.

 

Yes prices will go up. There seems to be a concensus amongst retail experts that this will be in the region of 3% over the next 12 months. It does make British goods better value by comparison.

 

That aside, the question should be, will an increase in earnings be able to cover this? Last year earnings went up by more than 2.3%.

Edited 16 October, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[John B]

Come on then, Shorluck, me old mucker, answer my question and furnish me with the source of the figures. It was a simple request, so it shouldn't have been a problem for somebody of the intellect you assume yourself to have.

 

I see another poster thinks you are ill informed regarding economics

 

UK productivity gap widens to worst level since records began https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/18/uk-productivity-gap-widens-to-worst-level-since-records-began

[Johnny Bognor]

It also means our exports are more competitive, so it balances out for the overall uk economy. When that well-known staunch anti-european Michael Heseltine was in thatchers cabinet, he was forever banging on about the pound being too strong and that it would be far better for the UK economy if it weakened against other major currencies. I'd guess that he might have some slight grasp of basic economic theory given that he served as president of the board of trade and deputy prime minister. In fact, and I'm sticking my neck out here, I'd also wager that he probably knows more about economic theory than any of us.

The devaluation after exiting the ERM was the springboard for a decade of economic growth.. a historical fact and an economic reality.

 

The point I made earlier is that the remainers only see the negatives. There are clear positives. It's a question of which will out weigh the other, the answer to which no one knows. But this doesn't mean that remaining was not subject to any changes and would have been the status quo

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Come on then, Shorluck, me old mucker, answer my question and furnish me with the source of the figures. It was a simple request, so it shouldn't have been a problem for somebody of the intellect you assume yourself to have.

 

The ONS, OECD etc all publishes those stats (ignore Baldrick, they are all reliable and credible sources). The quick brief (page 9) pulls things together. Of course, anyone who claimed any understanding of the UK would llkely know this already.

 

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06492/SN06492.pdf

[John B]

Unfortunately the markets disagree with you investors are selling pounds because they do not think the UK is the place to invest not that the pound is too high like in 1992.

 

As you say time will tell but it is likely on all given evidence that things are not going well economically as investors are not as willing as pre Brexit to buy government debt at low interest rates as the government has to offer better interest rates so our debt goes up

[shurlock]

The devaluation after exiting the ERM was the springboard for a decade of economic growth.. a historical fact and an economic reality.

 

The point I made earlier is that the remainers only see the negatives. There are clear positives. It's a question of which will out weigh the other, the answer to which no one knows. But this doesn't mean that remaining was not subject to any changes and would have been the status quo

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

There are plenty of cases of devaluations making no difference -and exiting the ERM happened in very different historical and economic conditions (e.g. the growth of global supply chains meaning that whatever gains are made through a devaluation in terms of the competitiveness of a firm or country's exports are equally likely to be lost through pricier imports).

 

All while the facts and reality currently tell us the trade deficit is widening...

[Johnny Bognor]

There are plenty of cases of devaluations making no difference -and exiting the ERM happened in very different historical and economic conditions (e.g. the growth of global supply chains which means that whatever gains are made through a devaluation in terms of the competitiveness of a firm or country's exports, they may be lost through pricier imports).

 

All while the facts and reality tell us the deficit is currently widening...

So any thoughts on the IMF'S opinion (amongst many) that the £ was up to 20% over valued?

 

Would a correction have happened at some point anyway?

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[buctootim]

It also means our exports are more competitive, so it balances out for the overall uk economy.

 

Not when you import far more than you export it doesnt.

 

When that well-known staunch anti-european Michael Heseltine was in thatchers cabinet, he was forever banging on about the pound being too strong and that it would be far better for the UK economy if it weakened against other major currencies. I'd guess that he might have some slight grasp of basic economic theory given that he served as president of the board of trade and deputy prime minister. In fact, and I'm sticking my neck out here, I'd also wager that he probably knows more about economic theory than any of us.

 

Yes but when Heseltine was in Government the $ was between 1.7 and 2.0 to the £ - way higher than now. If the exchange rate is too high it makes it impossible for businesses to export, but if it is too cheap you end up selling the same goods for much less foreign exchange or you have to sell more just to get the same. This doesn't necessarily matter to the company, but it matters hugely for the national balance of payments deficit. There is a sweet spot, around £1:$1.5 and we aren't at it. The other aspect of exchange rates is that exporting companies have to be confident the low exchange rate will persist long term if they are to think about investment to increase capacity. If there is no certainty then they will simply raise their prices and take more profit for every unit sold instead of going for higher volume.

 

 

Interesting interview with him here immediately post referendum. His vision seems to be becoming reality, especially from about 2:12 in.

Edited 16 October, 2016 by buctootim

[Johnny Bognor]

Unfortunately the markets disagree with you investors are selling pounds because they do not think the UK is the place to invest not that the pound is too high like in 1992.

 

As you say time will tell but it is likely on all given evidence that things are not going well economically as investors are not as willing as pre Brexit to buy government debt at low interest rates as the government has to offer better interest rates so our debt goes up

Just Google "sterling overvalued", I am not alone in my assertion.

 

Then dig a little bit to find out why it is bad for the economy.

 

People are still hooked on credit fueled spending binges.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

So any thoughts on the IMF'S opinion (amongst many) that the £ was up to 20% over valued?

 

Would a correction have happened at some point anyway?

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

What does up to mean (other than a sleight of hand)?

 

Would a correction have happened?

 

In principle yes, but imbalances can persist for a long time.

 

The more important thing is how that correction plays out - that it is smooth and orderly, not sudden and steep that is liable to freak out businesses and investors, creating fresh problems.

Edited 16 October, 2016 by shurlock

[Johnny Bognor]

What does up to mean (other than a sleight of hand)?

 

Would a correction have happened?

 

In principle yes, but imbalances can persist for a long time.

 

The more important thing is how that correction plays out - that it is smooth and orderly, not sudden and steep that is liable to freak out businesses and investors, creating fresh problems.

 

OK we're getting somewhere.

 

'Up to' accounts for different opinions of the level of over valuation ... from 9%, 10%, 15%, 19% up to 20%. Who knows the exact level but there is no one out there that thought it was under valued?

 

So at least you agree there was an imbalance. Therefore it would have devalued over time anyway. Therefore inflation would be inevitable.

 

Yes they can play out over the long term, but do you not agree that the longer it goes on for, the more damage is done to our economy??? The more job prospects are hampered??

 

Agreed a sharp rapid decline is not good, but it's happened now. Sterling needs to find its level and exporters can in effect take advantage of the current situation. Free access and goods that are now up to 20% cheaper in the EU. This is a plus side to the short sharp shock.

 

I have read of prices going up by 3% over the next 12 months. Those on lower incomes have just had a 8% pay rise with the increase in the minimum wage, so should be able to cope with 3%. Middle earners and high earners can absorb it.

 

Some, like the unemployed may be worse off, but with noises about the books balancing being put on hold, there is room for manoeuvre.

 

Not an ideal situation but it's far from as bad as some are making out.

Edited 16 October, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[Verbal]

If the mighty EU cannot push over the line a free trade deal with Canada in 7 years and counting, just think how long it would take little old us to achieve that.

 

I reckon we'd achieve it in under two years. Unless one of our Counties votes it down, that is.

 

We're gonna get a huge deal. You've never seen a deal this huge. Really. It's such a beautiful deal. And we're gonna make Germany pay for it.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

It also means our exports are more competitive, so it balances out for the overall uk economy. When that well-known staunch anti-european Michael Heseltine was in thatchers cabinet, he was forever banging on about the pound being too strong and that it would be far better for the UK economy if it weakened against other major currencies. I'd guess that he might have some slight grasp of basic economic theory given that he served as president of the board of trade and deputy prime minister. In fact, and I'm sticking my neck out here, I'd also wager that he probably knows more about economic theory than any of us.

 

The matter in hand was inflation/prices. Again, there can be no dispute that the fall the the pound's exchange rate will inevitably impact negatively on the prices we pay for food - most of which is imported by the way. Furthermore, as oil is traded in Dollars the cost of transport too will - indeed has - already risen. Talk of these various effects somehow magically "balancing" for everyone is economically illiterate because overall inflation is especially pernicious because it effects the poorest in society more severely than those better off groups to whom food and transport costs represent a relatively less significant part of their weekly budget.

 

Now clearly as one of those on here committed to seeing the referendum result only as a positive outcome these truths will be unwelcome. Unfortunately there are nevertheless true.

[Wes Tender]

http://news-watch.co.uk/bbc-brexit-collection-strong-bias-against-leaving-the-eu/?utm_content=buffer7ddc8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Not the least bit surprised.

[Johnny Bognor]

The matter in hand was inflation/prices. Again, there can be no dispute that the fall the the pound's exchange rate will inevitably impact negatively on the prices we pay for food - most of which is imported by the way.

 

Very misleading unless 40% represents "most". Most of the food consumed here is produced here, as our self-suffiency is approximately 60%. There will be an impact on 40% of food stuffs in the short term, but because of the increase in prices of imported foods, there is an incentive for the farming industry to produce more, so in the medium to long term, we can reverse this. Furthermore, there is choice when buying food and so people will inevitably choose different food/products.

 

Furthermore, as oil is traded in Dollars the cost of transport too will - indeed has - already risen.

 

Yes they have gone up a bit, but are a long way off the levels a couple of years ago, when pump prices hit £1.40 a litre. Remember that most of what we pay at the pump is duty/tax (around 60%), so the governement do have it in their power to alleviate the pressure of increases.

 

Talk of these various effects somehow magically "balancing" for everyone is economically illiterate because overall inflation is especially pernicious because it effects the poorest in society more severely than those better off groups to whom food and transport costs represent a relatively less significant part of their weekly budget.

 

Now clearly as one of those on here committed to seeing the referendum result only as a positive outcome these truths will be unwelcome. Unfortunately there are nevertheless true.

 

Those on low incomes (i.e. minimum wage) have recently had a pay rise of up to 7.5% as of the 1st October 2016, so this should also help cushion the blow.

 

I'm not saying it's ideal, but it is nowhere near as bad as you are implying.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

^ Re food imports:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/06/more-than-half-of-uks-food-sourced-from-abroad-study-finds .Even on your 40% number that would still obviously represent a very significant proportion of UK food supply.

 

As for the other points, the rise in inflation (and lower growth) we will almost certainly experience in the months and years ahead has only just begun of course. So your seeking to down play this effect as being somehow insignificant is premature at best, misleading at worse. Furthermore, clearly not everyone receiving what might reasonably be described as a low income were on the former legal minimum rates. Pay is a spectrum.Therefore any suggestion that poorer members of society collectively received a "7.5%" pay rise as a result of the introduction of the Living and Minimum Wage legislation is also highly misleading. I take it that is your aim here.

 

Surely the principle purpose of the various minimum wage rates that have been introduced here is that the poor experience a real rise in their living standards and a removed from benefit dependency to some extent. Should that rise in real living standards be lost amid a sea of (self inflicted) inflation then that benefit would be lost would it not?

[Johnny Bognor]

Intersting analysis on the different social groups who voted leave or remain...

 

[Johnny Bognor]

^ Re food imports:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/06/more-than-half-of-uks-food-sourced-from-abroad-study-finds .Even on your 40% number that would still obviously represent a very significant proportion of UK food supply.

 

As for the other points, the rise in inflation (and lower growth) we will almost certainly experience in the months and years ahead has only just begun of course. So your seeking to down play this effect as being somehow insignificant is premature at best, misleading at worse. Furthermore, clearly not everyone receiving what might reasonably be described as a low income were on the former legal minimum rates. Pay is a spectrum.Therefore any suggestion that poorer members of society collectively received a "7.5%" pay rise as a result of the introduction of the Living and Minimum Wage legislation is also highly misleading. I take it that is your aim here.

 

Surely the principle purpose of the various minimum wage rates that have been introduced here is that the poor experience a real rise in their living standards and a removed from benefit dependency to some extent. Should that increasing in living standards be lost amid a sea of (self inflicted) inflation then that benefit would be lost would it not?

 

Very very misleading article.

 

Look at the detail in the article:

"It comes after figures from the National Farmers’ Union released last year suggested that, by the mid-2040s, the country will only be able to produce enough food to feed 53% of its population."

 

Suggesting something that might happen in 25 years as a fact now, is bordering on an outright lie. Then click on the link: figures from the National Farmers’ Union released last year

 

The detail states...

Self-sufficiency in food in the UK has been eroded since the 1980s: about 60% of food currently consumed here is grown here, down from nearly 80% in the mid 1980s, even though more varieties of food previously thought exotic are now grown in the UK.

 

So as confirmed by your article, we DO NOT import most of our food

Edited 17 October, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Very very misleading article.

 

Look at the detail in the article:

"It comes after figures from the National Farmers’ Union released last year suggested that, by the mid-2040s, the country will only be able to produce enough food to feed 53% of its population."

 

Suggesting something that might happen in 25 years as a fact now, is bordering on an outright lie. Then click on the link: figures from the National Farmers’ Union released last year

 

The detail states...

Self-sufficiency in food in the UK has been eroded since the 1980s: about 60% of food currently consumed here is grown here, down from nearly 80% in the mid 1980s, even though more varieties of food previously thought exotic are now grown in the UK.

 

So as confirmed by your article, we DO NOT import most of our food

 

The truth is that the UK has seldom, if ever, been self-sufficient in terms of its food supply - especially if you take the vital 'feed' element of the question into consideration. I take it you do understand that without sufficient feed UK farmers cannot produce all the live-stock we required to meet our needs? You will agree that even on your chosen number we still import a huge percentage of our food?

[ecuk268]

Wherever did that come from?

Edited 17 October, 2016 by ecuk268

[ecuk268]

Intersting analysis on the different social groups who voted leave or remain...

 

 

As someone with a statistical background, I'd be interested to see how they compiled this chart. What's a Silver Sozzler? An alcoholic OAP?

[Guided Missile]

The truth is that the UK has seldom, if ever, been self-sufficient in terms of its food supply - especially if you take the vital 'feed' element of the question into consideration. I take it you do understand that without sufficient feed UK farmers cannot produce all the live-stock we required to meet our needs? You will agree that even on your chosen number we still import a huge percentage of our food?

Most of the food we import is from countries that can produce more efficiently than the UK, particularly in regions where, for instance, GM crops are approved or countries that produce cheaper than us, for instance in France, where the massive EU farm subsidies reward the inefficient. Food production in the EU is dictated by policies designed to protect local farmers and regulations that work against innovation. You only have to look at the benefits that GM technology has brought to Argentina, over a 15 year period. GM technology is used in nearly all soybean crops, in 86% of maize crops, and 99% of cotton crops. This process has implied cumulative gross earnings for Argentina amounting to US$ 72,645.52 million. 15 years on we still haven't adopted GM technology, despite the UK pioneering it. Why? The f***ing socialist, dogmatic and non-scientific politicians in countries like Sweden and Finland who vote based on warped beliefs not data.

Now we're free, welcome to fracking and GM technology and see the cheaper food and energy happen.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Most of the food we import is from countries that can produce more efficiently than the UK, particularly in regions where, for instance, GM crops are approved or countries that produce cheaper than us, for instance in France, where the massive EU farm subsidies reward the inefficient. Food production in the EU is dictated by policies designed to protect local farmers and regulations that work against innovation. You only have to look at the benefits that GM technology has brought to Argentina, over a 15 year period. GM technology is used in nearly all soybean crops, in 86% of maize crops, and 99% of cotton crops. This process has implied cumulative gross earnings for Argentina amounting to US$ 72,645.52 million. 15 years on we still haven't adopted GM technology, despite the UK pioneering it. Why? The f***ing socialist, dogmatic and non-scientific politicians in countries like Sweden and Finland who vote based on warped beliefs not data.

Now we're free, welcome to fracking and GM technology and see the cheaper food and energy happen.

 

Interesting, but not terribly germane to the point regarding inflation.

[DuncanRG]

That aside, the question should be, will an increase in earnings be able to cover this? Last year earnings went up by more than 2.3%.

 

And the answer will be no. Living costs have outstripped wage growth for years and a change wasn't really on the horizon before Brexit. Adding the weaker pound to the mix makes it even harder, for all the potential advantages it brings.

[Johnny Bognor]

The truth is that the UK has seldom, if ever, been self-sufficient in terms of its food supply - especially if you take the vital 'feed' element of the question into consideration. I take it you do understand that without sufficient feed UK farmers cannot produce all the live-stock we required to meet our needs? You will agree that even on your chosen number we still import a huge percentage of our food?

 

It's not my chosen number. It is based on facts, as evidenced by the detail in your article LOL

 

Anyway, you do realise that the EU artificially increases food prices through the use of tarriffs???

 

For example, A 30% levy is placed on coccoa products. 30% !!!! And to think you're worried about 3%???

 

Isoglucose has a 604% tarriff. SIX HUNDRED AND FOUR percent!!!

 

Outside the EU, we could offer tarrif free access to african and south american producers and substantially REDUCE food costs. I didnt realise how much the EU have been screwing low income famillies across Europe and how remainers are happy for this to continue!!!

Edited 17 October, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

It's not my chosen number. It is based on facts, as evidenced by the detail in your article LOL

 

Anyway, you do realise that the EU artificially increases food prices through the use of tarriffs???

 

For example, A 30% levy is placed on coccoa products. 30% !!!! And to think you're worried about 3%???

 

Outside the EU, we could offer tarrif free access to african and south american producers and substantially REDUCE food costs. I didnt realise how much the EU have been screwing low income famillies across Europe and how remainers are happy for this to continue!!!

 

If you are attempting to persuade this forum that a fall in the Pound's exchange rate of some 20% (against the USD) will not have a significant impact on UK inflation then you will have to work a hell of a lot harder than this to be frank. Again, any rise in inflation always hits the poorest the hardest - this fact of economic life does not seem to concern you very much for some reason.

 

All of this, and more, was predicted before the referendum vote, but glibly dismissed as just 'Project Fear' at the time. Well it seems that in this regard at least Project Fear is rapidly morphing into Project Clear.

[Guided Missile]

Interesting, but not terribly germane to the point regarding inflation.

Everything to do with inflation. Increased productivity in the food and energy sectors by the introduction of the new technology the EU is blocking, specifically GM and fracking, will lower prices. I'll look for a simple diagram online to help you.

[Johnny Bognor]

If you are attempting to persuade this forum that a fall in the Pound's exchange rate of some 20% (against the USD) will not have a significant impact on UK inflation then you will have to work a hell of a lot harder than this to be frank. Again, any rise in inflation always hits the poorest the hardest - this fact of economic life does not seem to concern you very much for some reason.

 

All of this, and more, was predicted before the referendum vote, but glibly dismissed as just 'Project Fear' at the time. Well it seems that in this regard at least Project Fear is rapidly morphing into Project Clear.

It will have an inflationary impact, which could be more than wiped out by removing excessive levies on food.

 

The average EU tarrif on food is 18%. You're harping on about 3 or 4%.

 

Low income families have been getting ripped off and kept poor, just to protect french farmers, over paying for food for years. This could be addressed after Brexit, by removing these barriers we could have cheaper food and help developing countries.

 

So let's get this straight. Are you happy that the poor and low income families have been paying 18% more than they need to?? Are you happy that they will continue to pay 18% more???

Edited 17 October, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[moonraker]

It's not my chosen number. It is based on facts, as evidenced by the detail in your article LOL

 

Anyway, you do realise that the EU artificially increases food prices through the use of tarriffs???

 

For example, A 30% levy is placed on coccoa products. 30% !!!! And to think you're worried about 3%???

 

Isoglucose has a 604% tarriff. SIX HUNDRED AND FOUR percent!!!

 

Outside the EU, we could offer tarrif free access to african and south american producers and substantially REDUCE food costs. I didnt realise how much the EU have been screwing low income famillies across Europe and how remainers are happy for this to continue!!!

 

The EU have already dealt with the Isoglucose quotas, http://www.foodnavigator.com/Market-Trends/Isoglucose-may-take-a-third-of-EU-sugar-market. They are to support EU sugar producers, the UK being the 5th largest producer in the EU with over 3400 UK farms growing sugarbeet. How would you support our sugabeet producers?

[Wes Tender]

If you are attempting to persuade this forum that a fall in the Pound's exchange rate of some 20% (against the USD) will not have a significant impact on UK inflation then you will have to work a hell of a lot harder than this to be frank. Again, any rise in inflation always hits the poorest the hardest - this fact of economic life does not seem to concern you very much for some reason.

 

All of this, and more, was predicted before the referendum vote, but glibly dismissed as just 'Project Fear' at the time. Well it seems that in this regard at least Project Fear is rapidly morphing into Project Clear.

 

Regarding a weaker Pound:-

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/16/let-the-pound-fall-and-the-economy-rise

 

Regarding your assertion that food prices would increase post-Brexit:-

http://libertarianhome.co.uk/2015/03/the-common-agricultural-policy-a-costly-protectionist-racket/

[Verbal]

Regarding a weaker Pound:-

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/16/let-the-pound-fall-and-the-economy-rise

 

I wonder what the Brexiteers will say to those on benefits, which (unlike your pension) are frozen until 2019/20 while inflation is set to rise to 3.5% pa. As you want to have your cake and eat it, I imagine 'let them eat cake' will fit pretty well. Aren't you luck you don't have to give a ****?

[Guided Missile]

The EU have already dealt with the Isoglucose quotas, http://www.foodnavigator.com/Market-Trends/Isoglucose-may-take-a-third-of-EU-sugar-market. They are to support EU sugar producers, the UK being the 5th largest producer in the EU with over 3400 UK farms growing sugarbeet. How would you support our sugabeet producers?

Why support sugar beet farmers by price support? Just grow another crop that is more profitable. Release farmers from being handout to opportunity seekers.

[Johnny Bognor]

I wonder what the Brexiteers will say to those on benefits, which (unlike your pension) are frozen until 2019/20 while inflation is set to rise to 3.5% pa. As you want to have your cake and eat it, I imagine 'let them eat cake' will fit pretty well. Aren't you luck you don't have to give a ****?

 

Let them pay tariffs, you know, the least progressive of taxes.. or leave the EU??

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

It will have an inflationary impact, which could be more than wiped out by removing excessive levies on food.

 

The average EU tarrif on food is 18%. You're harping on about 3 or 4%.

 

Low income families have been getting ripped off and kept poor, just to protect french farmers, over paying for food for years. This could be addressed after Brexit, by removing these barriers we could have cheaper food and help developing countries.

 

So let's get this straight. Are you happy that the poor and low income families have been paying 18% more than they need to?? Are you happy that they will continue to pay 18% more???

 

I find your claims to be concerned with the fate of the poor to be unconvincing. Among the very poorest in society are of course those who for one reason or another find themselves claiming benefits - how would the reduced growth rates we now seem set for allow their income to grow in real terms? Perhaps they might find gainful employment instead of life on the dole you may say - except that as a result of Brexit unemployment is now forecast to increase from 4.9% to 6% or more. For that matter how are our farmers to keep producing food at today's economic price when the supply of foreign labour so many of them require to gather in their crops every harvest time will be cut when we depart the Single Market? Again, increasing food and transports costs effect the poor disproportionately.

 

It is a matter of fact (that you and your mate Wes can check for yourself) that the Bank of England has already conceded that we will fail to meet its current 2% inflation rate target in the years ahead. You may be callow enough not to comprehend what inflation does to a person when money is tight - I on the other hand know only too well what that really means.

[Johnny Bognor]

The EU have already dealt with the Isoglucose quotas, http://www.foodnavigator.com/Market-Trends/Isoglucose-may-take-a-third-of-EU-sugar-market. They are to support EU sugar producers, the UK being the 5th largest producer in the EU with over 3400 UK farms growing sugarbeet. How would you support our sugabeet producers?

 

Tate & Lyle (Europe's largest sugar processor) were one of the biggest supporters of Brexit. They claim the EU are increasing their costs.

[Johnny Bognor]

I find your claims to be concerned with the fate of the poor to be unconvincing. Among the very poorest in society are of course those who for one reason or another find themselves claiming benefits - how would the reduced growth rates we now seem set for allow their income to grow in real terms? Perhaps they might find gainful employment instead of life on the dole you may say - except that as a result of Brexit unemployment is now forecast to increase from 4.9% to 6% or more. For that matter how are our farmers to keep producing food at today's economic price when the supply of foreign labour so many of them require to gather in their crops every harvest time will be cut when we depart the Single Market? Again, increasing food and transports costs effect the poor disproportionately.

 

It is a matter of fact (that you and your mate Wes can check for yourself) that the Bank of England has already conceded that we will fail to meet its current 2% inflation rate target in the years ahead. You may be callow enough not to comprehend what inflation does to a person when money is tight - I on the other hand know only too well what that really means.

 

So you are happy for everyone to pay over inflated food prices (up to 18% more on goods from outside the EU), glad we got that sorted.

I guess you were probably overjoyed when the EU destroyed the butter and wine mountains, whilst millions in Africa starved.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

So you are happy for everyone to pay over inflated food prices (up to 18% more on goods from outside the EU), glad we got that sorted.

I guess you were probably overjoyed when the EU destroyed the butter and wine mountains, whilst millions in Africa starved.

 

But the evidence shows that food costs have been reducing (as a proportion of household expenditure) for many years while we have maintained our EU (and Single Market) membership. You can easily check that for yourself if you care to. In the Single Market of course food imports from other EU states attract a zero import tariff rate, which common sense should tell you goes far to counteract the effect of EU farm subsidies. National farm subsidies by the way may still be required when we do eventually leave the EU in any case. My apologies if that too is inconvenient to your argument.

[moonraker]

Tate & Lyle (Europe's largest sugar processor) were one of the biggest supporters of Brexit. They claim the EU are increasing their costs.

 

As you say Tate & Lyle are the processors, my point was about the British farmers. Tate and Lyle are owned by American Sugar Holdings and their stance on the EU was more to do with reducing the cost of their cane sugar imports than protecting British jobs or British farmers, why listen to an American apparently the Brexit camping said it was none of there business. You Brexiters do want your cake and to eat it. Brexiters in the main slate big corporations unless the odd one or two support your rapidly disappearing arguments for self harm.

[Johnny Bognor]

But the evidence shows that food costs have been reducing (as a proportion of household expenditure) for many years while we have maintained our EU (and Single Market) membership. You can easily check that for yourself if you care to. In the Single Market of course food imports from other EU states attract a zero import tariff rate, which common sense should tell you goes far to counteract the effect of EU farm subsidies. National farm subsidies by the way may still be required when we do eventually leave the EU in any case. My apologies if that too is inconvenient to your argument.

 

Nearly half of our food imports come from outside the EU, which are subject to an average levy of 18%. The rest that comes from inefficient farmers in the EU, could be sourced for less elsewhere. We buy from the EU producers where the tariffs artificially distort the price. Also, the good news for British farmers is that the competing EU equivalents are now more expensive. Therefore, there is an incentive for them to produce more.

 

At the end of the day, the EU is a customs union, which means that it imposes tariffs on imports - such as food - from other countries. By leaving the customs union we will be able to drop those tariffs and thereby have cheaper food. That's one reason why leaving the EU is good for consumers, especially the poor who spend a disproportionately larger percentage of their money on food. So although inflation may be on the rise, this can be offset in other areas.

[Wes Tender]

I wonder what the Brexiteers will say to those on benefits, which (unlike your pension) are frozen until 2019/20 while inflation is set to rise to 3.5% pa. As you want to have your cake and eat it, I imagine 'let them eat cake' will fit pretty well. Aren't you luck you don't have to give a ****?

 

You really are a piece of work, aren't you? Dare to argue that the country could actually benefit from a weaker Pound and be labelled by you as not giving a **** for the poor and needy. Still, it's nothing new from the Remainian camp. CEC delighted in accusing Brexiteers of not caring for the future generations, which was equally arrogant twaddle.