Errol Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 Register your support for the Brexit Party here - https://www.thebrexitparty.org/ This party will be contesting any future election should Brexit not be carried out in accordance with the referendum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHAL Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, kzb said: Can't be right if pharmaceuticals alone, reportedly covered by this, amount to 18% of UK -> USA exports. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-usa-agree-to-continue-mutual-recognition-agreement "Total UK-US trade in sectors covered by the deal is worth up to £12.8 billion, based on recent average trade flows. Of this, the UK exports covered are worth an estimated £8.9 billion- more than a fifth of total UK goods exports to the US. Today’s signing marks a crucial step in the important trading relationship between the UK and America, the world’s largest economy. The agreement benefits a range of sectors, including pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceuticals account for around £7.7 billion of UK exports to the US - nearly 18% of total UK goods exports to the US. Other industries that will benefit include the tech sector and telecommunications equipment suppliers." https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/europe/united-kingdom "United Kingdom is currently our 7th largest goods trading partner with $109.4 billion in total (two way) goods trade during 2017." I don't know about 9% but it doesn't sound too far off. Edited February 15, 2019 by IMHAL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kzb Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, IMHAL said: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-usa-agree-to-continue-mutual-recognition-agreement "Total UK-US trade in sectors covered by the deal is worth up to £12.8 billion, based on recent average trade flows. Of this, the UK exports covered are worth an estimated £8.9 billion- more than a fifth of total UK goods exports to the US. Today’s signing marks a crucial step in the important trading relationship between the UK and America, the world’s largest economy. The agreement benefits a range of sectors, including pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceuticals account for around £7.7 billion of UK exports to the US - nearly 18% of total UK goods exports to the US. Other industries that will benefit include the tech sector and telecommunications equipment suppliers." https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/europe/united-kingdom "United Kingdom is currently our 7th largest goods trading partner with $109.4 billion in total (two way) goods trade during 2017." Yes, so it is a lot more than 9% of UK exports to US. It is "over a fifth" -20%+ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollover Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 Quote The UK is paralysed over Brexit because there are no good options May’s strategy remains too soft for Leavers and too hard for Remainers. The Prime Minister’s apparent triumph on 29 January — when the Commons voted in favour of her deal minus the Irish backstop — was exposed as illusory. What many crave is something that does not exist: a time machine. David Cameron, who urged his party in 2006 to stop “banging on about Europe”, told Nick Clegg before his 2013 announcement of a referendum: “I have to do this. It is a party management issue.” The second statement — “a party management issue” — undercuts the first. Cameron did not have to hold the referendum, and a prime minister who put country before party would not have done so. What MPs truly crave, then, is a past that no longer exists. newstatesman Very good, short and sweet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 3 hours ago, crouch said: As I said Smith stressed the moral point of view. What neoliberals seem to forget is that a strong state is a necessary condition for a successful capitalist economy and an economy is a social construct based on morality. The idea that an economy obeys the laws of physics and is therefore something that we are subject to rather than ultimately control is a self serving illusion. Not quite. Neoliberal models of production and exchange are a purely mathematical constructs based on the proof of existence of equilibrium where real world market dynamics are either ignored or falsely assumed. As soon as physics is invoked they fall to pieces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kzb Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 Hillary Benn on BBC R4 this morning: In any sensible negotiation, what would be happening now is extending Article 50 notice period until the future relationship is sorted out. I must say I could go with this. An extension for the reason of arranging the future relationship, which would be the deep and extensive FTA we were offered ages ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHAL Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, kzb said: Yes, so it is a lot more than 9% of UK exports to US. It is "over a fifth" -20%+ No.......it only covers £12.8 bn of $109bn previous total two way traffic (goods and services). It may not be 9% but it's not far off. Whichever way you look at it, it's a loss of 80% or 90% of our previous trade... it's nothing to rejoice over. Edit: @ 1.3 dollars to the £ and based on 2017 figures (2018 is probably higher) it works out at ~15%........ so this deal represents a loss of 85%. Edited February 15, 2019 by IMHAL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmarket Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) The Commission is quickly yielding to reality, and Ireland is beginning to wake up: Quote Editorial: 'EU cannot allow us to burn as may fiddles over brexit' We had hoped Poland's foreign minister was a different drummer marching in another direction when he broke ranks with the EU band, suggesting last month that Ireland has "treated the UK harshly" over the backstop. It now looks as though it could be Ireland that is out of step, not Poland's Jacek Czaputowicz. ...A forthright and frankly chilling interview with someone described as a "senior EU diplomat" yesterday came like a glass of cold water in the face. ...Tánaiste Simon Coveney's office was anxious to dismiss the report. A spokesman said: "I would point to people who put their names to statements like President Tusk and President Juncker who have repeatedly said the EU is determined to do all it can, deal or no deal, to avoid the need for a Border and to protect peace..." We are in no doubt the EU will do "all that it can". This has never been in question. The difficulty, and it is a grave one, is that it can do nothing. https://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/editorial-eu-cannot-allow-us-to-burn-as-may-fiddles-over-brexit-37818812.html Edited February 15, 2019 by darkmarket formatting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kzb Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 1 minute ago, IMHAL said: No.......it only covers £12.8 bn of $109bn previous total two way traffic (goods and services). It may not be 9% but it's not far off. Whichever way you look at it, it's a loss of 80% or 90% of our previous trade... it's nothing to rejoice over. The important thing is a large amount of our higher end exports are covered. It does not mean that 80-90% of trade is lost. It is just a start. I must say, I don't know why any country would spend any money on this until we had definitively sorted out what we are doing. The fact that they have shows an amazing amount of goodwill IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHAL Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, kzb said: The important thing is a large amount of our higher end exports are covered. It does not mean that 80-90% of trade is lost. It is just a start. I must say, I don't know why any country would spend any money on this until we had definitively sorted out what we are doing. The fact that they have shows an amazing amount of goodwill IMHO. "It just a start'........hello!........ End of March .... tick tock...... Carpetbaggers and chaos monger must be laughing their socks off. Edited February 15, 2019 by IMHAL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kzb Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 8 minutes ago, IMHAL said: "It just a start'........hello!........ End of March .... tick tock...... Carpetbaggers and chaos monger must be laughing their socks off. Yes I agree, the fact it has taken this long is because we never had any intention of leaving. We still don't, and I don't know if the US, Australia et al may have wasted time and money on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHAL Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 30 minutes ago, kzb said: Yes I agree, the fact it has taken this long is because we never had any intention of leaving. We still don't, and I don't know if the US, Australia et al may have wasted time and money on this. Thanks - that does make sense. Second Bold: You are wrong headed about that point. It's clear that we don't know on what basis to leave, which has proved to be the main sticking point.....because we never did get a mandate from the people for a specific deal...and now there is doubt about the compromised deal that May has put together.... because no one is sure that is what the people voted for (Leavers think it too soft, Remainers too hard) All in all it's going about as well and anyone would expect for a mission without an agreed destination. Time to revoke A50 and figure out if we want to leave planet earth, with limited fuel and oxygen before deciding what other planet to travel to, if at all. Edited February 15, 2019 by IMHAL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouch Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 17 hours ago, zugzwang said: Economists have never presented convincing, empirical evidence for the existence of an Invisible Hand in real markets. Re this: I think there might be some confusion. If you take the invisible hand as the reconciler of public and private interest it is simply inherent in the notion of exchange; both are integral to the same act. Put it another way and say they are the two sides of the same coin. So therefore there is no "evidence"; the invisible hand is merely a type of description of the act of exchange itself. "Not quite. Neoliberal models of production and exchange are a purely mathematical constructs based on the proof of existence of equilibrium where real world market dynamics are either ignored or falsely assumed. As soon as physics is invoked they fall to pieces." Indeed but I think we're talking about slightly different things. I was simply emphasising that the neoliberals want a small state whereas what is required in a capitalist system is a strong state. Now strong is not the opposite of small of course but neoliberals by implication want a weak state and this, it seems to me, actually undermines the possibility of a fully functioning capitalist system. Of course if you go the whole hog and adopt the libertarian position this would eliminate the state almost altogether but whether a libertarian state is actually viable is a moot point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kzb Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 25 minutes ago, IMHAL said: You are wrong headed about that point. It's clear that we don't know on what basis to leave, which has proved to be the main sticking point.....because we never did get a mandate from the people for a specific deal...and now there is doubt about the compromised deal that May has put together.... because no one is sure that is what the people voted for (Leavers think it too soft, Remainers too hard) All in all it's going about as well and anyone would expect for a mission without an agreed destination. Time to revoke A50 and figure out if we want to leave planet earth, with limited fuel and oxygen before deciding what other planet to travel to, if at all. I still don't think we can revoke and carry on with arranging leaving. The EU won't have that. I think I am with Hilary Benn on this. Ask to extend A50 notice period to give time for the future relationship to be sorted. This is such a sensible suggestion it is guaranteed to sink without trace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 9 minutes ago, kzb said: I still don't think we can revoke and carry on with arranging leaving. The EU won't have that. I think I am with Hilary Benn on this. Ask to extend A50 notice period to give time for the future relationship to be sorted. This is such a sensible suggestion it is guaranteed to sink without trace. No, they won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrizzlyDave Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 9 minutes ago, kzb said: I still don't think we can revoke and carry on with arranging leaving. The EU won't have that. I think I am with Hilary Benn on this. Ask to extend A50 notice period to give time for the future relationship to be sorted. This is such a sensible suggestion it is guaranteed to sink without trace. ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHAL Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 11 minutes ago, kzb said: I still don't think we can revoke and carry on with arranging leaving. The EU won't have that. I think I am with Hilary Benn on this. Ask to extend A50 notice period to give time for the future relationship to be sorted. This is such a sensible suggestion it is guaranteed to sink without trace. I guess I was rewinding the clock on that one. It would have been better to have decided that before the first referendum....but, hey ho...... I also thought the EU would not allow an extension to re-negotiate, unless there was significant movement towards a softer Brexit that is. Are you saying that you would support a softer Brexit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollover Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 48 minutes ago, kzb said: I still don't think we can revoke and carry on with arranging leaving. The EU won't have that. I think I am with Hilary Benn on this. Ask to extend A50 notice period to give time for the future relationship to be sorted. This is such a sensible suggestion it is guaranteed to sink without trace. It's like asking for more rope to ... Edited February 15, 2019 by rollover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kzb Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 21 minutes ago, IMHAL said: I guess I was rewinding the clock on that one. It would have been better to have decided that before the first referendum....but, hey ho...... I also thought the EU would not allow an extension to re-negotiate, unless there was significant movement towards a softer Brexit that is. Are you saying that you would support a softer Brexit? I don't think we could've held the referendum on the promise that we'd extend the two year notice period. That would've immediately weakened our hand. The extension was reportedly only allowed for a 2nd ref or a GE. It is true they are saying they are not going to change the WA. However we are now seeing the impossibility of getting the WA through parliament. We are headed for no deal. The problem is not just the backstop it is we do not have any guaranteed outcome on the future trading relationship. Giving time to sort out the FTA and other matters by extending is a win-win. Both sides benefit from it. Soft-hard what does it all mean really? The outcome should be that the UK looks after its own trading arrangements with the RoW, can control immigration etc. On the other hand there are specific worthwhile items that we could continue supporting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kzb Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 3 minutes ago, rollover said: It's like asking for more rope to ... There is a danger of that. We need to get some beleavers in control for the extension that is for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled Canadian Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 20 minutes ago, kzb said: There is a danger of that. We need to get some beleavers in control for the extension that is for sure. Asking David Davis, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees Mogg to sort it out would be "interesting" to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHAL Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 26 minutes ago, kzb said: I don't think we could've held the referendum on the promise that we'd extend the two year notice period. That would've immediately weakened our hand. The extension was reportedly only allowed for a 2nd ref or a GE. It is true they are saying they are not going to change the WA. However we are now seeing the impossibility of getting the WA through parliament. We are headed for no deal. The problem is not just the backstop it is we do not have any guaranteed outcome on the future trading relationship. Giving time to sort out the FTA and other matters by extending is a win-win. Both sides benefit from it. Soft-hard what does it all mean really? The outcome should be that the UK looks after its own trading arrangements with the RoW, can control immigration etc. On the other hand there are specific worthwhile items that we could continue supporting. You make it sound so simple... but we know it's not....unless you are prepared to make some unpalatable sacrifices... In theory, May's deal is a gateway to all you require. It may not be popular compared to a 'Brexit with Cake and Cherries' (but that never existed), it may also not be as popular as Remain. With your suggestion I think we are in a catch 22 - we need to know what we want to get more time..... but we need more time to decide what we want. On second thoughts, It's not really that good a good suggestion. I think May's deal will pass, because the alternative is too horrible for sane minded people to inflict on the people. As a remainer I am not happy about it, it's damage limitation. Edited February 15, 2019 by IMHAL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 1 hour ago, kzb said: I still don't think we can revoke and carry on with arranging leaving. The EU won't have that. I think I am with Hilary Benn on this. Ask to extend A50 notice period to give time for the future relationship to be sorted. This is such a sensible suggestion it is guaranteed to sink without trace. The ERG want to leave without a deal. So far so good. May has to figure out if it’s actually possible to keep her party together and which bit to go with. And eventually somebody will have to govern on behalf of the country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kzb Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 23 minutes ago, pig said: The ERG want to leave without a deal. So far so good. May has to figure out if it’s actually possible to keep her party together and which bit to go with. And eventually somebody will have to govern on behalf of the country "Eventually" implies there is a lot of time. Which there is not. I don't think the ERG want to leave without a deal. It was always the idea to have an FTA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrizzlyDave Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, kzb said: I don't think we could've held the referendum on the promise that we'd extend the two year notice period. That would've immediately weakened our hand. The extension was reportedly only allowed for a 2nd ref or a GE. It is true they are saying they are not going to change the WA. However we are now seeing the impossibility of getting the WA through parliament. We are headed for no deal. The problem is not just the backstop it is we do not have any guaranteed outcome on the future trading relationship. Giving time to sort out the FTA and other matters by extending is a win-win. Both sides benefit from it. Soft-hard what does it all mean really? The outcome should be that the UK looks after its own trading arrangements with the RoW, can control immigration etc. On the other hand there are specific worthwhile items that we could continue supporting. Although I have some sympathy for this as a strategy - agree an FTA then leave - this should have been the process from the start of it all. The trouble is now, proposing this now, is like a cup of cold sick. It is highly toxic to brexiteers as it will be seen as remainers wanting us to stay in the EU forever. So I do think now, that we need to rip off the plaster. We will conclude an FTA far quicker when we are out. Edited February 15, 2019 by GrizzlyDave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.