Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IMHAL

  1. There are some serious questions to ask about the purpose of the NHS and it's priorites. My belief is that their priority should be first and foremost to take care of those that are young and in their prime. I know that sounds harsh...but the old have had their life...and I speak as an oldie. The old take up too much bandwidth and the very old, far too much. We need to accept a shorter life not prolonged by expensive intervention.
  2. I don't think the problem will be our standards being unacceptable because they are too low. The problem is more likely to be that we, by agreeing to recognise their standards, will accept lower standards....which will impact again on our businesses....as if they haven't had to cope with enough Brexit already.
  3. More worrying is that since we have applied, then we have already decided that their standards are agreable to us. If this is the case don't we want to know what standards we have agreed to accept and what the impact of this will be on our producers and businesses?
  4. That sounds like saying we have shot ourselves in the foot and now we'd better start using crutches. But you are right in one respect. Businesses will either fail or reconfigure their supply chains to mitigate the damage or they will accept the status quo and jack up their prices. The real question is how they go about doing this without damaging their competitiveness or putting their businesses needlessly at risk. Regardig your last point. Reconfiguring supply chains is not easy, it's expensive and loaded with risk. Businesses cannot say with all certainty which supply chains will break (that takes hindsight) and they cannot reconfigure all chains to exclude the EU as that would potentially leave them in an uncompetitive position where they to pick the wrong or more expensive suppliers when other did not. It's a minefield. So simply saying that they need to 'reconfigure' is too simplistic and not nuanced. I have some sympathy with those that say it will take 10 - 20 years to do this.....when there are opportunities and benefits. But I have no sympathy with the process taking this long for no benefit and incurring losses on the way.
  5. When they keep scoring home goals and wonder why they are losing....you have to wonder...
  6. This is ridiculous. Businesses have efficiently sourced the desired inputs to solve a problem. This happens to be from the EU, our closest neighbours who supply these products. Having made trade more difficult with the EU means that the most efficient curent route to solve the problem is now defunct. Businesses will have to find the second most efficient route to solve the issue, ie it will involve duisruption and it will be more expensive. That is what Brexit means for all businesses up and down the country that rely on this 'local' supply chain. I hope that this is not new news to you? If you are advocating 'local' ie made in Britain for everything, then you are truly at odds with the modern world.
  7. That's then an argument for cooperation with markets closer to us. So we have shot ourself in the foot twice.
  8. It's allmost a pointless question. If lesser standard products are mutually recognised 'as safe' and they are imported then how we produce food domestically is by the by. That food will be consumed by the people of this country and at the same time our producers will be hurt because they cannot compete with lesser standards. From that point onwards it becomes a matter of time before we submit to market forces. You can call this speculation but that is precisely why the EU gave in to the example you mentioned. Do you know what disperate food standards all the member of the CPTPP conform to and how that will impact on our producers here? I'd expect to see a full impact analysis on these issues, as I am sure would you. Can't see the point of joining something without full knowledge as to the potential impact. Can you?
  9. Absolutely - lowest common denominator will win out. We accept the standard of others, so it's cheaper and get adopted defacto. That is precisely how it works. We let it in, our businesses can't compete, businesses and the revenue make the changes so that we can compete. standards are changed.
  10. You do realise how utterly ludicrous your position is. First you complain about following EU standards, then you question the need in joining a trade block at all (thinking for yourself you said), Then you trumpet the CPTPP which you don't have a clue to the scale of opportunities and seemingly no problem with how we would need to align there. You predict the demise of the EU and the dimunition of the USA as world economic powers and at the same time you tell us that no one can predict the future. I am starting to feel sorry for you.
  11. The point of Brexit changes with the wind. First it was China, then it wasn't and now maybe it is. Then it was the USA and now it's not. These guys don't know WTF they are doing. It's a total sham, but they were right about one thing....Brexit means Brexit and no one know what that means.
  12. We've just come out of the EU and you are already trumpetting joining the CPTPP. That is a new alignment right there, new rules, etc....it's a knee jerk reaction to provide positive optics for the hard of thinking. Can you spell out the advantages of joining the CPTPP which is the other side of the world as far as we are concerned. What do the analysts think will be the benefits short, medium and long term? Looking at the countries involved. I wouldn't put the increased trade at 0.5% GDP if that. ie it's just for show...but it will tie us into a relationship long term whose member will always look at us as a true geographical outsider, an aberation, a distraction. The balance of trade has always been between closer neighbours and it will continue to be so, especially as fossil fuels run down and transport becomes more expensive. We are on a hiding to nothing. You also say that the EU is declining and the USA is declining.....which of those members of the CPTPP are significant economies likely to fill the hole that leaving the EU has made? It's all nonesense and you know it deep down.
  13. You'd rather align with China...and there was I thinking you have sone sense. I was wrong.
  14. Formulating FTA's with RoW is policy. Yes, deliberate. Everyone makes trade deals out of necessity. People want to be more prosperous, they bring down trade barriers.....except the UK which seems to be doing a good job of p1ssing everyone off or bending over and getting shafted at every turn.. Again, you seem to be of the impression that the developing natons will continue to grow at this rate and that somehow we can capitalise on this better outside the EU. That is still to be proven......but as you seem to think that Brexiteers don't need to justify anything....I'll hold my breath. Ahh, jam tomorrow....that old chestnut. In case you hadn't noticed, the world is dominated by the large trade blocks. Trade is regulated in each block...we will have to pick one to belong to. This is spoilt child syndrome. The EU doesn't require 'obedience' from it's members, it requires formulation of mutually agreed rules and then expects the members to stick to those rules. Like a grown up!
  15. There'd be no one to serve them in the 'eat out to help kill' mass extermination initiative. Who needs enemies when you have a government like this.
  16. At least the Ozzies don't have a Brexit related lack of staff....'the cure that kills' .....in your words.
  17. A quote from the article. 'We find that most tax revenues with a minimum tax will originate from British banks' Legal corruption....we are pretty good at that.
  18. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/03/supply-chain-whack-a-mole-covid-leaves-some-australian-supermarket-shelves-bare-as-thousands-of-staff-isolate The Australians take their isolation measures and protecting their citizens seriously. No workers, no food. Uk: ~130k deaths Oz: ~1k deaths
  19. Two points. First, the EU is deliberately persuing a policy of increasing trade with RoW whilst increasing GDP, so it's not suprising that the whole of the EU's trade with RoW has increased and trade internally has decreased relative to it, whilst GDP has risen. Second, that the EU has been more successfull in promoting trade external to the EU relative to the the UK's efforts over the last few years is another success for the EU and a blot on the UK. Conclusion, your yard stick is wrong, you are looking at the wrong thing and coming to the wrong conclusion. You need to be measuring how the UK compares with the EU in increasing Row trade whilst increasing GDP. We are behind, the EU is increasing trade with RoW faster than the UK and increasing GDP. It's not as simple as you make it look, nor is it set in stone, but it could be classed as silly. For example. If we severed all ties with the EU then of course ROW trade would outpace EU trade. The trick is that one has to mainain GDP growth at the same time as increasing RoW trade. If you don't manage to do both then it counts for nothing. Simply saying that RoW trade has increased (whilst GDP has actually going down relative to the EU) - is a fail.
  20. The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on May 9, 1950, to prevent further war between France and Germany. His declared aim was to make future wars among the European nations unthinkable due to higher levels of regional integration, with the ECSC as the first step towards that integration.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.