Gardenwalker, if you were looking for an impoverished view of our future you could do no better than remaining shackled to a failing and unreformable EU, which is why your side failed to make any sort of positive case for doing so.
The only thing shackled is your brain. As you've got it into your head that the EU is failing and unreformable, logically you will not be persuaded by any positive case.
Not that the Remain campaign made any attempt to provide that case.
You have not, to my knowledge, ever dared to make a positive case on here beyond vague platitudes. I strongly suspect that is because we would find your argument to be full of holes and based on fallacies.
Like the fallacy you pushed during the referendum campaign that freedom of movement meant that anyone within the EU could come into the UK.
I know it's said that a rogue poll is a poll which which one disagrees, but this one looks like it needs putting away in the round filing cabinet under the desk.
Anyway, more interestingly, CNN is apparently reporting (via Telegraph) that the US will withdraw from NAFTA within 200 days and replace it with a Canada only agreement which will be joined in due course by the U.K.
2016, like 2001 and 1989, has been a pivot. One era has ended. A new one begins.
Gardenwalker, if you were looking for an impoverished view of our future you could do no better than remaining shackled to a failing and unreformable EU, which is why your side failed to make any sort of positive case for doing so.
The only thing shackled is your brain. As you've got it into your head that the EU is failing and unreformable, logically you will not be persuaded by any positive case.
Not that the Remain campaign made any attempt to provide that case.
You have not, to my knowledge, ever dared to make a positive case on here beyond vague platitudes. I strongly suspect that is because we would find your argument to be full of holes and based on fallacies.
Like the fallacy you pushed during the referendum campaign that freedom of movement meant that anyone within the EU could come into the UK.
Nope. I was saying that I wanted anyone in the EU to come to the UK. I hold a very minority position of wanting no immigration controls beyond basic security/criminal controls. I was however one of those pointing out that currently it requires 8 years before a migrant arriving in Germany could legally settle in the UK.
Anyway, more interestingly, CNN is apparently reporting (via Telegraph) that the US will withdraw from NAFTA within 200 days and replace it with a Canada only agreement which will be joined in due course by the U.K.
2016, like 2001 and 1989, has been a pivot. One era has ended. A new one begins.
Telegraph: Britain will be front of the queue for trade deal, says incoming US commerce secretary.
Anyway, more interestingly, CNN is apparently reporting (via Telegraph) that the US will withdraw from NAFTA within 200 days and replace it with a Canada only agreement which will be joined in due course by the U.K.
2016, like 2001 and 1989, has been a pivot. One era has ended. A new one begins.
Telegraph: Britain will be front of the queue for trade deal, says incoming US commerce secretary.
Great, so we can look forward to American hormone injected beef, and privatisation of the NHS to US Health Corps. Any deal good for Trump will be bad for us.
Anyway, more interestingly, CNN is apparently reporting (via Telegraph) that the US will withdraw from NAFTA within 200 days and replace it with a Canada only agreement which will be joined in due course by the U.K.
2016, like 2001 and 1989, has been a pivot. One era has ended. A new one begins.
Telegraph: Britain will be front of the queue for trade deal, says incoming US commerce secretary.
Great, so we can look forward to American hormone injected beef, and privatisation of the NHS to US Health Corps. Any deal good for Trump will be bad for us.
And at a time when we are oh so desperate for a deal. The usual cheerleaders will eat it up, of course.
Ydoethur said ' Unless we have an election on it, although I don't think that's very likely as that would be electoral suicide from Labour.'
But elections are never held on single issues even if a PM calls one for a particular reason. Ted Heath found that out in February 1974 when he called the election in response to the decision of the NUM to strike. In the campaign other issues came to the fore , and I believe the same would happen if May was able to call an election in 2017.
Anyway, more interestingly, CNN is apparently reporting (via Telegraph) that the US will withdraw from NAFTA within 200 days and replace it with a Canada only agreement which will be joined in due course by the U.K.
2016, like 2001 and 1989, has been a pivot. One era has ended. A new one begins.
Telegraph: Britain will be front of the queue for trade deal, says incoming US commerce secretary.
Great, so we can look forward to American hormone injected beef, and privatisation of the NHS to US Health Corps. Any deal good for Trump will be bad for us.
Were they not the two things that the UK put in as exceptions to the now-dead TTIP trade deal? Agree with you that US food standards are crap, and that US healthcare is in a different way just as broken as UK healthcare. I'm sure we have plenty in common that forms the basis of a mutually beneficial trade deal though.
It would be good news if it happens (and subject to the terms). Counterintuitively I was a fan of Conrad Black's plan for the UK to join NAFTA, and whilst this isn't quite as good it's good enough for Government work...
Gardenwalker, if you were looking for an impoverished view of our future you could do no better than remaining shackled to a failing and unreformable EU, which is why your side failed to make any sort of positive case for doing so.
The only thing shackled is your brain. As you've got it into your head that the EU is failing and unreformable, logically you will not be persuaded by any positive case.
Not that the Remain campaign made any attempt to provide that case.
You have not, to my knowledge, ever dared to make a positive case on here beyond vague platitudes. I strongly suspect that is because we would find your argument to be full of holes and based on fallacies.
Like the fallacy you pushed during the referendum campaign that freedom of movement meant that anyone within the EU could come into the UK.
Nope. I was saying that I wanted anyone in the EU to come to the UK. I hold a very minority position of wanting no immigration controls beyond basic security/criminal controls. I was however one of those pointing out that currently it requires 8 years before a migrant arriving in Germany could legally settle in the UK.
No, you explicitly said the following:
"It is a basic principle of the EU that anyone who has a legal right to be in the EU has a right to be anywhere within the EU. It is the fundamental principle of freedom of movement."
I can understand why some people see this Opinium poll as an outlier, but in the context of this polling company it isn't really.Their previous poll in Mid-November showed a Tory lead of 12% and that is the only occasion they have come up with a double figure lead since May 2015. Two weeks earlier the Tory lead was just 8% and at the end of July it was as low as 6%.In that sense, there is a consistency in these figures.The final Opinium poll at the last election was a Tory lead of 1% - so they were at least as accurate - or inaccurate - as other pollsters.
Tried to bet on ore after he went to 7 to 1 on Betfair... nothing in account.... and card expired.... Murray better win tomorrow .
That's cheered me right up.
I've been laying Ore this past week.
Soon as len said he was the spirit of strictly...that was my prompt and he's the classic journey through the show story... and yet Danny was 2 to 1 on... hey ho
Thank gawd spurs and England cricketers aren't playing tomorrow.
Not good when companies try to convince themselves that the law doesn't apply to them.
They need the highway patrol to stop every one of these and confiscate them, offer the 'driver' immunity from prosecution for undue care, if he hands over the keys.
This particular company have been asking for a big slap for a long time now, it's only a matter of time until they get it.
Gardenwalker, if you were looking for an impoverished view of our future you could do no better than remaining shackled to a failing and unreformable EU, which is why your side failed to make any sort of positive case for doing so.
The only thing shackled is your brain. As you've got it into your head that the EU is failing and unreformable, logically you will not be persuaded by any positive case.
Not that the Remain campaign made any attempt to provide that case.
You have not, to my knowledge, ever dared to make a positive case on here beyond vague platitudes. I strongly suspect that is because we would find your argument to be full of holes and based on fallacies.
Like the fallacy you pushed during the referendum campaign that freedom of movement meant that anyone within the EU could come into the UK.
Nope. I was saying that I wanted anyone in the EU to come to the UK. I hold a very minority position of wanting no immigration controls beyond basic security/criminal controls. I was however one of those pointing out that currently it requires 8 years before a migrant arriving in Germany could legally settle in the UK.
No, you explicitly said the following:
"It is a basic principle of the EU that anyone who has a legal right to be in the EU has a right to be anywhere within the EU. It is the fundamental principle of freedom of movement."
Tried to bet on ore after he went to 7 to 1 on Betfair... nothing in account.... and card expired.... Murray better win tomorrow .
That's cheered me right up.
I've been laying Ore this past week.
Soon as len said he was the spirit of strictly...that was my prompt and he's the classic journey through the show story... and yet Danny was 2 to 1 on... hey ho
Thank gawd spurs and England cricketers aren't playing tomorrow.
You're playing a team from a small town in Lancashire aren't you.
You should be nailed on. You should only be worried if you were playing a Yorkshire team.
Wilbur Ross's objections to the current portfolio of US trade deals is that they are too bureaucratic and don't sufficiently use the leverage the United States has in pushing the trade balance in its favour. He summarises his principles here In particular: In any negotiation or renegotiation, our guiding principle should be this: Enter into a free trade agreement only if it both increases total trade and reduces our trade deficit.
The US has a balance of trade deficit with the UK so there is an opportunity to reduce that with a new FTA with the UK.
Not good when companies try to convince themselves that the law doesn't apply to them.
They need the highway patrol to stop every one of these and confiscate them, offer the 'driver' immunity from prosecution for undue care, if he hands over the keys.
This particular company have been asking for a big slap for a long time now, it's only a matter of time until they get it.
+1
What I really dislike about this is the company's summary dismissal of the drivers they blame for the accident.
Here in Cambridge we have a (mis)Guided Bus. There have been several accidents where, after a cursory investigation, the drivers have been disciplined and/or sacked. Whilst the drivers may have been to blame, the lax 'investigations' (which the company has a large hand in) may allow important causal factors to remain undiscovered.
One of the things Apple asked for in their recent letter about driverless cars is their request that companies be forced/encouraged to share de-identified data about crashes and near-misses, so the companies can learn from the mistakes of the others. The letter is well worth a read (*).
I can imagine what Uber's reaction to this would be. If so, they should be.
I'm unsure what the relevant regulations in the UK are, but I'd hope they are much tighter. Or are we also running headlong towards the cliff?
(*) It may have escaped readers' notice, but this is unusual praise for Apple from me.
You are obviously disapointed that we are no longer at the back of the queue
When someone wants to take advantage of your weakened state , they will move you to the front of the queue
If we don't like the deal it's up to is whether or not we sign. At least we're not being dictated to by French farmers, Italian wine growers or Portuguese citrus farms.
Tying ourselves to Trump's America may require some rapid about turns in our foreign policy.
One of the (several) reasons why I was so agin Brexit is the sheer weight of effort and resources it would take to complete it. One manifestation of this is the fact that we no longer have a foreign policy. If Trump is willing to throw us a lifeline, then we will not be in a position to turn it down, even if it does smell of cat poo.
You are obviously disapointed that we are no longer at the back of the queue
When someone wants to take advantage of your weakened state , they will move you to the front of the queue
If we don't like the deal it's up to is whether or not we sign. At least we're not being dictated to by French farmers, Italian wine growers or Portuguese citrus farms.
Nope. Kansas bio-engineers, Illinois health sub-contractors, and Manhattan kleptocrats with weird hair.
I know who I'd rather be "dictated" to (note the paranoiac verb).
You are obviously disapointed that we are no longer at the back of the queue
When someone wants to take advantage of your weakened state , they will move you to the front of the queue
If we don't like the deal it's up to is whether or not we sign. At least we're not being dictated to by French farmers, Italian wine growers or Portuguese citrus farms.
True to a certain point. However the EU FTAs do a lot more than pander to special interests (including UK ones of course). They are higher quality than most others.
Tying ourselves to Trump's America may require some rapid about turns in our foreign policy.
One of the (several) reasons why I was so agin Brexit is the sheer weight of effort and resources it would take to complete it. One manifestation of this is the fact that we no longer have a foreign policy. If Trump is willing to throw us a lifeline, then we will not be in a position to turn it down, even if it does smell of cat poo.
Quite. Few enough were able to sense this, some far sighted enough to express it. But difficult to really articulate it without being accused of project fear.
Not good when companies try to convince themselves that the law doesn't apply to them.
They need the highway patrol to stop every one of these and confiscate them, offer the 'driver' immunity from prosecution for undue care, if he hands over the keys.
This particular company have been asking for a big slap for a long time now, it's only a matter of time until they get it.
+1
What I really dislike about this is the company's summary dismissal of the drivers they blame for the accident.
Here in Cambridge we have a (mis)Guided Bus. There have been several accidents where, after a cursory investigation, the drivers have been disciplined and/or sacked. Whilst the drivers may have been to blame, the lax 'investigations' (which the company has a large hand in) may allow important causal factors to remain undiscovered.
One of the things Apple asked for in their recent letter about driverless cars is their request that companies be forced/encouraged to share de-identified data about crashes and near-misses, so the companies can learn from the mistakes of the others. The letter is well worth a read (*).
I can imagine what Uber's reaction to this would be. If so, they should be.
I'm unsure what the relevant regulations in the UK are, but I'd hope they are much tighter. Or are we also running headlong towards the cliff?
(*) It may have escaped readers' notice, but this is unusual praise for Apple from me.
I hope that in the California case, we end up with senior executives jailed for contempt and the company banned from operating in the State. They're that bad with their attitude and until it affects those at the top they will keep on trying to push their luck further.
Apple have the right idea, that these autonomous cars will only work if they can all talk to each other, so setting up half a dozen proprietary standards won't cut it. They should all also be able to learn from each others' mistakes, as happens in aviation and railways where accidents get investigated by someone impartial and safety reports get published publicly.
You are obviously disapointed that we are no longer at the back of the queue
When someone wants to take advantage of your weakened state , they will move you to the front of the queue
If we don't like the deal it's up to is whether or not we sign. At least we're not being dictated to by French farmers, Italian wine growers or Portuguese citrus farms.
I'm sceptical of these phantom trade deals that pop up in the euro-sceptic press (usually accompanied by a photo of a beaming Liam Fox with a union-jack halo). Nevertheless, if Trump offers us something then it's inconceivable that the British government would or could refuse - it would be impossible to justify the refusal to the Brexit buccaneering free-trade faction, and you could also be certain that no US offer would be made again. We'll accept whatever's proposed and be grateful.
Tying ourselves to Trump's America may require some rapid about turns in our foreign policy.
One of the (several) reasons why I was so agin Brexit is the sheer weight of effort and resources it would take to complete it. One manifestation of this is the fact that we no longer have a foreign policy. If Trump is willing to throw us a lifeline, then we will not be in a position to turn it down, even if it does smell of cat poo.
Quite. Few enough were able to sense this, some far sighted enough to express it. But difficult to really articulate it without being accused of project fear.
You are obviously disapointed that we are no longer at the back of the queue
When someone wants to take advantage of your weakened state , they will move you to the front of the queue
If we don't like the deal it's up to is whether or not we sign. At least we're not being dictated to by French farmers, Italian wine growers or Portuguese citrus farms.
Nope. Kansas bio-engineers, Illinois health sub-contractors, and Manhattan kleptocrats with weird hair.
I know who I'd rather be "dictated" to (note the paranoiac verb).
Nope, your examples are those we are negotiating to trade with, we will sit across the table from them and come to an arrangement that is mutually beneficial. My examples are those who are supposed to be on our side of the table, but frequently argue against our (British) interest, holding up negotiations and deals.
Wilbur Ross's objections to the current portfolio of US trade deals is that they are too bureaucratic and don't sufficiently use the leverage the United States has in pushing the trade balance in its favour. He summarises his principles here In particular: In any negotiation or renegotiation, our guiding principle should be this: Enter into a free trade agreement only if it both increases total trade and reduces our trade deficit.
The US has a balance of trade deficit with the UK so there is an opportunity to reduce that with a new FTA with the UK.
It is feasible that the US could reduce it's bi-lateral deficit while we reduce our global one if the deal is worked through. It means cutting the EU adrift, mind.
You are obviously disapointed that we are no longer at the back of the queue
When someone wants to take advantage of your weakened state , they will move you to the front of the queue
If we don't like the deal it's up to is whether or not we sign. At least we're not being dictated to by French farmers, Italian wine growers or Portuguese citrus farms.
Nope. Kansas bio-engineers, Illinois health sub-contractors, and Manhattan kleptocrats with weird hair.
I know who I'd rather be "dictated" to (note the paranoiac verb).
Nope, your examples are those we are negotiating to trade with, we will sit across the table from them and come to an arrangement that is mutually beneficial. My examples are those who are supposed to be on our side of the table, but frequently argue against our (British) interest, holding up negotiations and deals.
Nope, your examples were so much Daily Express claptrap. I just gave you some actual reasons to be concerned about trade.
Wilbur Ross's objections to the current portfolio of US trade deals is that they are too bureaucratic and don't sufficiently use the leverage the United States has in pushing the trade balance in its favour. He summarises his principles here In particular: In any negotiation or renegotiation, our guiding principle should be this: Enter into a free trade agreement only if it both increases total trade and reduces our trade deficit.
The US has a balance of trade deficit with the UK so there is an opportunity to reduce that with a new FTA with the UK.
It is feasible that the US could reduce it's bi-lateral deficit while we reduce our global one if the deal is worked through. It means cutting the EU adrift, mind.
You are obviously disapointed that we are no longer at the back of the queue
When someone wants to take advantage of your weakened state , they will move you to the front of the queue
If we don't like the deal it's up to is whether or not we sign. At least we're not being dictated to by French farmers, Italian wine growers or Portuguese citrus farms.
Nope. Kansas bio-engineers, Illinois health sub-contractors, and Manhattan kleptocrats with weird hair.
I know who I'd rather be "dictated" to (note the paranoiac verb).
Nope, your examples are those we are negotiating to trade with, we will sit across the table from them and come to an arrangement that is mutually beneficial. My examples are those who are supposed to be on our side of the table, but frequently argue against our (British) interest, holding up negotiations and deals.
Nope, your examples were so much Daily Express claptrap. I just gave you some actual reasons to be concerned about trade.
So it wasn't some little region in Belgium that threatened to scupper the EU-Canada deal the other month? These deals are much easier when there are fewer competing interests around the table, and having to negotiate as part of a 28-nation block means that our (British) interest is open to be negotiated away *by our own side* as part of any deal.
Wilbur Ross's objections to the current portfolio of US trade deals is that they are too bureaucratic and don't sufficiently use the leverage the United States has in pushing the trade balance in its favour. He summarises his principles here In particular: In any negotiation or renegotiation, our guiding principle should be this: Enter into a free trade agreement only if it both increases total trade and reduces our trade deficit.
The US has a balance of trade deficit with the UK so there is an opportunity to reduce that with a new FTA with the UK.
It is feasible that the US could reduce it's bi-lateral deficit while we reduce our global one if the deal is worked through. It means cutting the EU adrift, mind.
By us no longer trading with the EU?
From a US perspective, Wilbur Ross's idea is worth at least considering. The US does have leverage. I should say that trade experts disagree with him because they think international trade is too complicated with supply chains to be simply a bilateral haggle that reflects the relative negotiating power of the countries concerned. They think international trade should be rules based.
But if the Wilbur Ross approach is good for America shouldn't we also be looking to increase trade and shift the balance in our favour? It won't work for us because we don't have the same kind of leverage the US does - certainly not against China, the EU and the US. Chile, maybe, but they are not important.
You are obviously disapointed that we are no longer at the back of the queue
When someone wants to take advantage of your weakened state , they will move you to the front of the queue
If we don't like the deal it's up to is whether or not we sign. At least we're not being dictated to by French farmers, Italian wine growers or Portuguese citrus farms.
Nope. Kansas bio-engineers, Illinois health sub-contractors, and Manhattan kleptocrats with weird hair.
I know who I'd rather be "dictated" to (note the paranoiac verb).
Nope, your examples are those we are negotiating to trade with, we will sit across the table from them and come to an arrangement that is mutually beneficial. My examples are those who are supposed to be on our side of the table, but frequently argue against our (British) interest, holding up negotiations and deals.
Nope, your examples were so much Daily Express claptrap. I just gave you some actual reasons to be concerned about trade.
So it wasn't some little region in Belgium that threatened to scupper the EU-Canada deal the other month. These deals are much easier when there are fewer competing interests around the table, and having to negotiate as part of a 28-nation block means that our (British) interest is open to be negotiated away *by our own side* as part of any deal.
You're talking about the Walloons, who held up a deal for all of a matter of weeks. Then it was signed.
It takes time, sure, but that's democracy in a customs union.
Take a look at how many EU FTAs there are. The idea that the EU is a moribund autarchy is another Brexit myth. (See also, "the EU is holding us back from being a successful exporter").
Wilbur Ross's objections to the current portfolio of US trade deals is that they are too bureaucratic and don't sufficiently use the leverage the United States has in pushing the trade balance in its favour. He summarises his principles here In particular: In any negotiation or renegotiation, our guiding principle should be this: Enter into a free trade agreement only if it both increases total trade and reduces our trade deficit.
The US has a balance of trade deficit with the UK so there is an opportunity to reduce that with a new FTA with the UK.
It is feasible that the US could reduce it's bi-lateral deficit while we reduce our global one if the deal is worked through. It means cutting the EU adrift, mind.
And require a wrenching economic readjustment.
Perhaps the readjustment is already underway?
Our exports to the EU are said to be shrinking at a rate of 1% p.a. by ONS over the last eight years, while global exports are growing at 5% per annum. The EU has transitioned to minority market for us.
Even without a helping hand, that trend points to the EU being under 30% of our exports within another seven to eight years.
Gaining free and willing partners from elsewhere will most probably see this accelerate, and without the social impositions that the public object to.
You are obviously disapointed that we are no longer at the back of the queue
When someone wants to take advantage of your weakened state , they will move you to the front of the queue
If we don't like the deal it's up to is whether or not we sign. At least we're not being dictated to by French farmers, Italian wine growers or Portuguese citrus farms.
Nope. Kansas bio-engineers, Illinois health sub-contractors, and Manhattan kleptocrats with weird hair.
I know who I'd rather be "dictated" to (note the paranoiac verb).
Nope, your examples are those we are negotiating to trade with, we will sit across the table from them and come to an arrangement that is mutually beneficial. My examples are those who are supposed to be on our side of the table, but frequently argue against our (British) interest, holding up negotiations and deals.
Nope, your examples were so much Daily Express claptrap. I just gave you some actual reasons to be concerned about trade.
So it wasn't some little region in Belgium that threatened to scupper the EU-Canada deal the other month. These deals are much easier when there are fewer competing interests around the table, and having to negotiate as part of a 28-nation block means that our (British) interest is open to be negotiated away *by our own side* as part of any deal.
You're talking about the Walloons, who held up a deal for all of a matter of weeks. Then it was signed.
It takes time, sure, but that's democracy in a customs union.
Take a look at how many EU FTAs there are. The idea that the EU is a moribund autarchy is another Brexit myth. (See also, "the EU is holding us back from being a successful exporter").
So how many of the EU FTAs cover major British interests such as financial services, biotech and aerospace technology? These are things we want to export, which get forgotten about in EU-led trade negotiations. Hell, the EU can't even agree on free trade in services within its own borders!
You are obviously disapointed that we are no longer at the back of the queue
When someone wants to take advantage of your weakened state , they will move you to the front of the queue
If we don't like the deal it's up to is whether or not we sign. At least we're not being dictated to by French farmers, Italian wine growers or Portuguese citrus farms.
Nope. Kansas bio-engineers, Illinois health sub-contractors, and Manhattan kleptocrats with weird hair.
I know who I'd rather be "dictated" to (note the paranoiac verb).
Nope, your examples are those we are negotiating to trade with, we will sit across the table from them and come to an arrangement that is mutually beneficial. My examples are those who are supposed to be on our side of the table, but frequently argue against our (British) interest, holding up negotiations and deals.
Nope, your examples were so much Daily Express claptrap. I just gave you some actual reasons to be concerned about trade.
So it wasn't some little region in Belgium that threatened to scupper the EU-Canada deal the other month. These deals are much easier when there are fewer competing interests around the table, and having to negotiate as part of a 28-nation block means that our (British) interest is open to be negotiated away *by our own side* as part of any deal.
You're talking about the Walloons, who held up a deal for all of a matter of weeks. Then it was signed.
It takes time, sure, but that's democracy in a customs union.
Take a look at how many EU FTAs there are. The idea that the EU is a moribund autarchy is another Brexit myth. (See also, "the EU is holding us back from being a successful exporter").
So how many of the EU FTAs cover major British interests such as financial services, biotech and aerospace technology? These are things we want to export, which get forgotten about in EU-led trade negotiations. Hell, the EU can't even agree on free trade in financial services within its own borders!
EU FTAs cover services more than any FTAs signed by anyone else. The FTAs take our special interests into consideration along with Portuguese citrus growers etc, but as I said below, the FTAs do much more than that. Their whole point is to provide a deep and benign trading environment. EU FTAs do that more than others, with the possible exception of the US ones.
Wilbur Ross's objections to the current portfolio of US trade deals is that they are too bureaucratic and don't sufficiently use the leverage the United States has in pushing the trade balance in its favour. He summarises his principles here In particular: In any negotiation or renegotiation, our guiding principle should be this: Enter into a free trade agreement only if it both increases total trade and reduces our trade deficit.
The US has a balance of trade deficit with the UK so there is an opportunity to reduce that with a new FTA with the UK.
It is feasible that the US could reduce it's bi-lateral deficit while we reduce our global one if the deal is worked through. It means cutting the EU adrift, mind.
And require a wrenching economic readjustment.
Perhaps the readjustment is already underway?
Our exports to the EU are said to be shrinking at a rate of 1% p.a. by ONS over the last eight years, while global exports are growing at 5% per annum. The EU has transitioned to minority market for us.
Even without a helping hand, that trend points to the EU being under 30% of our exports within another seven to eight years.
Gaining free and willing partners will most probably see this accelerate.
Another myth. The EU has declined relatively as a trading partner as our business with the emerging markets of China etc has grown. To be expected.
It is still by far our largest market, though - not a "minority market", whatever that is.
Cutting ourselves adrift will have significant consequences even if life is ultimately better in the long run (as Brexiters presumably believe it will be, although one hears that said less these days).
@Sandpit Results haven't been certified fully till now, it might feel like an annoying market, but it is paying alot better than the bank still.
Yes that's true, but I think most of us would have expected to have been paid our winnings within a day or two of the election - as is the case in pretty much any other country! It's astonishing that the results of an election on 8th November don't get certified until 18th December, 40 days later.
Wilbur Ross's objections to the current portfolio of US trade deals is that they are too bureaucratic and don't sufficiently use the leverage the United States has in pushing the trade balance in its favour. He summarises his principles here In particular: In any negotiation or renegotiation, our guiding principle should be this: Enter into a free trade agreement only if it both increases total trade and reduces our trade deficit.
The US has a balance of trade deficit with the UK so there is an opportunity to reduce that with a new FTA with the UK.
It is feasible that the US could reduce it's bi-lateral deficit while we reduce our global one if the deal is worked through. It means cutting the EU adrift, mind.
By us no longer trading with the EU?
By being more open to the US and similar others, potentially displacing existing EU imports.
Britain the consumer does not need to tie itself so closely to the EU.
Wilbur Ross's objections to the current portfolio of US trade deals is that they are too bureaucratic and don't sufficiently use the leverage the United States has in pushing the trade balance in its favour. He summarises his principles here In particular: In any negotiation or renegotiation, our guiding principle should be this: Enter into a free trade agreement only if it both increases total trade and reduces our trade deficit.
The US has a balance of trade deficit with the UK so there is an opportunity to reduce that with a new FTA with the UK.
It is feasible that the US could reduce it's bi-lateral deficit while we reduce our global one if the deal is worked through. It means cutting the EU adrift, mind.
By us no longer trading with the EU?
By being more open to the US and similar others, potentially displacing existing EU imports.
The US and similar others? There's only one similar other to the US and it's called the EU.
Wilbur Ross's objections to the current portfolio of US trade deals is that they are too bureaucratic and don't sufficiently use the leverage the United States has in pushing the trade balance in its favour. He summarises his principles here In particular: In any negotiation or renegotiation, our guiding principle should be this: Enter into a free trade agreement only if it both increases total trade and reduces our trade deficit.
The US has a balance of trade deficit with the UK so there is an opportunity to reduce that with a new FTA with the UK.
It is feasible that the US could reduce it's bi-lateral deficit while we reduce our global one if the deal is worked through. It means cutting the EU adrift, mind.
And require a wrenching economic readjustment.
Perhaps the readjustment is already underway?
Our exports to the EU are said to be shrinking at a rate of 1% p.a. by ONS over the last eight years, while global exports are growing at 5% per annum. The EU has transitioned to minority market for us.
Even without a helping hand, that trend points to the EU being under 30% of our exports within another seven to eight years.
Gaining free and willing partners will most probably see this accelerate.
Another myth. The EU has declined relatively as a trading partner as our business with the emerging markets of China etc has grown. To be expected.
It is still by far our largest market, though - not a "minority market", whatever that is.
Cutting ourselves adrift will have significant consequences even if life is ultimately better in the long run (as Brexiters presumably believe it will be, although one hears that said less these days).
No. Not a myth. Our trade with the US - hardly an emerging market - has also grown. It grew rapidly up until 2007, dropped back during the crash in 2008 and has continued to grow steadily - and far faster than our trade with the EU - since 2008.
A 44% share of 100% global trade is a minority, and it is shrinking. We are different to most of Europe in having the EU as a minority partner. Non-EU is the majority for us.
On the Opinium poll it just is against the perception and evidence.
As Mark Senior reports there is a Lib Dem improvement, mainly in the south, but the conservatives are doing well in Scotland, Wales and most of England, while Labour is losing all over the Country with one or two exceptions
I do not think the conservatives are below 40% but I do think the Lib Dems are at 10% or a little more, UKIP near 12% and labour in the region of 26%. I would expect the Lib Dems and UKIP to crossover in the early new year
Re a joint trade deal with the US and Canada it would be a big vote of confidence, especially if there is a memorandum of intention before we leave the EU
The big issue is how Trump sees the EU. If, and it is a very big if, he is listening to Farage and downplays the EU it could have very serious consequences for them .
Trump's relationship, or otherwise, with Merkel will be fascinating. She did take the high moral ground with him when Trump won the election.and she is very close to Obama, even though he will shortly be out of Office
Wilbur Ross's objections to the current portfolio of US trade deals is that they are too bureaucratic and don't sufficiently use the leverage the United States has in pushing the trade balance in its favour. He summarises his principles here In particular: In any negotiation or renegotiation, our guiding principle should be this: Enter into a free trade agreement only if it both increases total trade and reduces our trade deficit.
The US has a balance of trade deficit with the UK so there is an opportunity to reduce that with a new FTA with the UK.
It is feasible that the US could reduce it's bi-lateral deficit while we reduce our global one if the deal is worked through. It means cutting the EU adrift, mind.
By us no longer trading with the EU?
By being more open to the US and similar others, potentially displacing existing EU imports.
The US and similar others? There's only one similar other to the US and it's called the EU.
No, the anomaly is the EU, William.
Which other free trade area/deal imposes the social rules the EU does? It's out of kilter.
The big issue is how Trump sees the EU. If, and it is a very big if, he is listening to Farage and downplays the EU it could have very serious consequences for them .
Trump's relationship, or otherwise, with Merkel will be fascinating.
Agree on the second point, but you only have to juxtapose the names Merkel and Farage to realise how ludicrous it is to think that Trump will base his policy towards Europe on what a man who's failed to get elected so many times says.
By being more open to the US and similar others, potentially displacing existing EU imports.
Britain the consumer does not need to tie itself so closely to the EU.
I am not sure it works that way. But leaving aside all the other stuff there is a real question as to why the rEU are getting better and better at selling to us, while we are not increasing our exports to them.
I have a notion of an explanation, which is that the much maligned Euro is doing its job of encouraging trade and that spills outside the Eurozone itself. This doesn't have anything to do with Brexit by the way. We were never going to join the Euro.
'I do not think the conservatives are below 40% but I do think the Lib Dems are at 10% or a little more, UKIP near 12% and labour in the region of 26%. I would expect the Lib Dems and UKIP to crossover in the early new year' The three most recent polls have given Labour poll ratings of 27%, 29% and now 31%. On that basis 26% seems too low - particularly as ICM has tended to understate Labour and last had them on 27%.
The big issue is how Trump sees the EU. If, and it is a very big if, he is listening to Farage and downplays the EU it could have very serious consequences for them .
Trump's relationship, or otherwise, with Merkel will be fascinating.
Agree on the second point, but you only have to juxtapose the names Merkel and Farage to realise how ludicrous it is to think that Trump will base his policy towards Europe on what a man who's failed to get elected so many times says.
Good point but isn't that where we are now in this crazy word. All reason has gone out of the window and it is just possible Farage could cause major problems for Merkel and the EU
One thing that will become clear over the coming months is whether Farage has that power or he has not
By being more open to the US and similar others, potentially displacing existing EU imports.
Britain the consumer does not need to tie itself so closely to the EU.
I am not sure it works that way. But leaving aside all the other stuff there is a real question as to why the rEU are getting better and better at selling to us, while we are not increasing our exports to them.
I have a notion of an explanation, which is that the much maligned Euro is doing its job of encouraging trade and that spills outside the Eurozone itself. This doesn't have anything to do with Brexit by the way. We were never going to join the Euro.
It's worth examing the tables in the link downthread.
Greatest annual growth in exports to the UK are coming from Lithuania, Bulgaria, Poland. Cheap labour?
Growth from the old EU is very small, if at all - with the exception of the Germans who are skilfully managing an undervalued currency courtesy of the Greeks et al.
It's hard to see what has been in the EU's eastern expansion for us in terms of exports. It's a similar question to the one confronting the Americans about Mexico.
It's hard to see what has been in the EU's eastern expansion for us in terms of exports. It's a similar question to the one confronting the Americans about Mexico.
The promotion of good democratic governance that went hand in hand with the EU's eastern expansion has been very much in our interests. Just imagine an alternative post-communist vision where those states has instead descended into the kind of corrupt gangland that we see in Mexico.
EU Member states 7% of world population. Non EU States 93% of world population.
Yet tying ourselves to the 7% actively inhibits our trade with the other 93%.
Is London held back by being tied to the rest of the UK that makes up such an insignificant percentage of the world's population? Perhaps it should break free as an independent city state...
By being more open to the US and similar others, potentially displacing existing EU imports.
Britain the consumer does not need to tie itself so closely to the EU.
I am not sure it works that way. But leaving aside all the other stuff there is a real question as to why the rEU are getting better and better at selling to us, while we are not increasing our exports to them.
I have a notion of an explanation, which is that the much maligned Euro is doing its job of encouraging trade and that spills outside the Eurozone itself. This doesn't have anything to do with Brexit by the way. We were never going to join the Euro.
It's worth examing the tables in the link downthread.
Greatest annual growth in exports to the UK are coming from Lithuania, Bulgaria, Poland. Cheap labour?
Growth from the old EU is very small, if at all - with the exception of the Germans who are skilfully managing an undervalued currency courtesy of the Greeks et al.
It's hard to see what has been in the EU's eastern expansion for us in terms of exports. It's a similar question to the one confronting the Americans about Mexico.
I'm afraid that's not a correct reading. The Germans are doing very well with exports. The others are also on average increasing exports faster than the UK . I think Italy may be an exception. There is the EU export helpdesk or something that has detailedfigures that I looked at some time back. Top line Exports as % of GDP can be seen in this chart
A 44% share of 100% global trade is a minority, and it is shrinking. We are different to most of Europe in having the EU as a minority partner. Non-EU is the majority for us.
EU Member states 7% of world population. Non EU States 93% of world population.
Yet tying ourselves to the 7% actively inhibits our trade with the other 93%.
Is London held back by being tied to the rest of the UK that makes up such an insignificant percentage of the world's population? Perhaps it should break free as an independent city state...
By being more open to the US and similar others, potentially displacing existing EU imports.
Britain the consumer does not need to tie itself so closely to the EU.
I am not sure it works that way. But leaving aside all the other stuff there is a real question as to why the rEU are getting better and better at selling to us, while we are not increasing our exports to them.
I have a notion of an explanation, which is that the much maligned Euro is doing its job of encouraging trade and that spills outside the Eurozone itself. This doesn't have anything to do with Brexit by the way. We were never going to join the Euro.
Thinking about it, maybe it does have to do with Brexit. People who say we should get away from the EU because it is declining are barking up the wrong tree IMO. The question for Britain specifically is why we are not exporting as much we should expect to. In particular we are not exporting as much as should to the EU. We should be working out how to improve rather than cut us ourselves off further.
By being more open to the US and similar others, potentially displacing existing EU imports.
Britain the consumer does not need to tie itself so closely to the EU.
I am not sure it works that way. But leaving aside all the other stuff there is a real question as to why the rEU are getting better and better at selling to us, while we are not increasing our exports to them.
I have a notion of an explanation, which is that the much maligned Euro is doing its job of encouraging trade and that spills outside the Eurozone itself. This doesn't have anything to do with Brexit by the way. We were never going to join the Euro.
It's worth examing the tables in the link downthread.
Greatest annual growth in exports to the UK are coming from Lithuania, Bulgaria, Poland. Cheap labour?
Growth from the old EU is very small, if at all - with the exception of the Germans who are skilfully managing an undervalued currency courtesy of the Greeks et al.
It's hard to see what has been in the EU's eastern expansion for us in terms of exports. It's a similar question to the one confronting the Americans about Mexico.
I'm afraid that's not a correct reading. The Germans are doing very well with exports. The others are also on average increasing exports faster than the UK . I think Italy may be an exception. There is the EU export helpdesk or something that has detailedfigures that I looked at some time back. Top line Exports as % of GDP can be seen in this chart
Some of those countries seem to have exports greater than their GDP. How can that be?
Anyway, more interestingly, CNN is apparently reporting (via Telegraph) that the US will withdraw from NAFTA within 200 days and replace it with a Canada only agreement which will be joined in due course by the U.K.
2016, like 2001 and 1989, has been a pivot. One era has ended. A new one begins.
Well it makes strategic sense for both America and Britain.
Anyway, more interestingly, CNN is apparently reporting (via Telegraph) that the US will withdraw from NAFTA within 200 days and replace it with a Canada only agreement which will be joined in due course by the U.K.
2016, like 2001 and 1989, has been a pivot. One era has ended. A new one begins.
Well it makes strategic sense for both America and Britain.
By being more open to the US and similar others, potentially displacing existing EU imports.
Britain the consumer does not need to tie itself so closely to the EU.
I am not sure it works that way. But leaving aside all the other stuff there is a real question as to why the rEU are getting better and better at selling to us, while we are not increasing our exports to them.
I have a notion of an explanation, which is that the much maligned Euro is doing its job of encouraging trade and that spills outside the Eurozone itself. This doesn't have anything to do with Brexit by the way. We were never going to join the Euro.
It's worth examing the tables in the link downthread.
Greatest annual growth in exports to the UK are coming from Lithuania, Bulgaria, Poland. Cheap labour?
Growth from the old EU is very small, if at all - with the exception of the Germans who are skilfully managing an undervalued currency courtesy of the Greeks et al.
It's hard to see what has been in the EU's eastern expansion for us in terms of exports. It's a similar question to the one confronting the Americans about Mexico.
I'm afraid that's not a correct reading. The Germans are doing very well with exports. The others are also on average increasing exports faster than the UK . I think Italy may be an exception. There is the EU export helpdesk or something that has detailedfigures that I looked at some time back. Top line Exports as % of GDP can be seen in this chart
Some of those countries seem to have exports greater than their GDP. How can that be?
Re-exporting exports.
The Netherlands for instance is simply a large port for German products leaving the EU. As is Hong Kong for Chinese products leaving China.
Comments
like Danny..
Long remainery rant...
SNIP
Anyway, more interestingly, CNN is apparently reporting (via Telegraph) that the US will withdraw from NAFTA within 200 days and replace it with a Canada only agreement which will be joined in due course by the U.K.
2016, like 2001 and 1989, has been a pivot.
One era has ended. A new one begins.
ICM had the lead shrinking and Ipsos Mori had the Tory VI down.
I hope there's a YouGov poll next week.
May is massively ahead of the field here, she'd get a huge majority in a snap election.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/17/exclusive-britain-will-front-queue-trade-deal-us-donald-trumps/
The poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
Is the Tory vote really departing for Labour?
No.
Don't we see this every time around various school holidays?
Don't we see this every time around various school holidays? "
Yes.
Where Cadburys goes, the country will follow.
' Unless we have an election on it, although I don't think that's very likely as that would be electoral suicide from Labour.'
But elections are never held on single issues even if a PM calls one for a particular reason. Ted Heath found that out in February 1974 when he called the election in response to the decision of the NUM to strike. In the campaign other issues came to the fore , and I believe the same would happen if May was able to call an election in 2017.
Off-topic:
Uber versus the DMV over autonomous cars.
http://arstechnica.co.uk/cars/2016/12/uber-wont-apply-for-an-autonomous-car-permit-in-california/
They need slapping down. hard.
I've been laying Ore this past week.
'And at a time when we are oh so desperate for a deal. The usual cheerleaders will eat it up, of course.'
But presumably quite OK if it was the EU that made a trade deal with the US or was that just desperate stuff as well ?
"It is a basic principle of the EU that anyone who has a legal right to be in the EU has a right to be anywhere within the EU. It is the fundamental principle of freedom of movement."
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/979888/#Comment_979888
I know you don't personally care about freedom of movement so it's perhaps forgiveable that you don't understand how it currently operates...
And our desperate stance makes that even more true.
There are also geopolitical forces at play. Tying ourselves to Trump's America may require some rapid about turns in our foreign policy.
Thank gawd spurs and England cricketers aren't playing tomorrow.
You are obviously disapointed that we are no longer at the back of the queue
They need the highway patrol to stop every one of these and confiscate them, offer the 'driver' immunity from prosecution for undue care, if he hands over the keys.
This particular company have been asking for a big slap for a long time now, it's only a matter of time until they get it.
I do hope Brexit turns out as he expects. There's nothing worse than being a disappointed prophet.
"Our negotiating power is less than when we were part of a bigger bloc."
Our flexibility to get a deal that is right for us, is greater than when we were part of a bigger bloc.
You should be nailed on. You should only be worried if you were playing a Yorkshire team.
OGH
The US has a balance of trade deficit with the UK so there is an opportunity to reduce that with a new FTA with the UK.
What I really dislike about this is the company's summary dismissal of the drivers they blame for the accident.
Here in Cambridge we have a (mis)Guided Bus. There have been several accidents where, after a cursory investigation, the drivers have been disciplined and/or sacked. Whilst the drivers may have been to blame, the lax 'investigations' (which the company has a large hand in) may allow important causal factors to remain undiscovered.
One of the things Apple asked for in their recent letter about driverless cars is their request that companies be forced/encouraged to share de-identified data about crashes and near-misses, so the companies can learn from the mistakes of the others. The letter is well worth a read (*).
I can imagine what Uber's reaction to this would be. If so, they should be.
I'm unsure what the relevant regulations in the UK are, but I'd hope they are much tighter. Or are we also running headlong towards the cliff?
(*) It may have escaped readers' notice, but this is unusual praise for Apple from me.
https://twitter.com/RealNatalieRowe/status/810232595053182977
I know who I'd rather be "dictated" to (note the paranoiac verb).
Well, here we are.
Apple have the right idea, that these autonomous cars will only work if they can all talk to each other, so setting up half a dozen proprietary standards won't cut it. They should all also be able to learn from each others' mistakes, as happens in aviation and railways where accidents get investigated by someone impartial and safety reports get published publicly.
2016 votes 136,628,459
VEP 231,556,622
Turnout %59.004
Clinton vote %48.192
Trump vote %46.10
PV Winner Clinton
Will Next President Lose Popular Vote? YES
Anyway, I must abed, alarm goes off in six hours!
From a US perspective, Wilbur Ross's idea is worth at least considering. The US does have leverage. I should say that trade experts disagree with him because they think international trade is too complicated with supply chains to be simply a bilateral haggle that reflects the relative negotiating power of the countries concerned. They think international trade should be rules based.
But if the Wilbur Ross approach is good for America shouldn't we also be looking to increase trade and shift the balance in our favour? It won't work for us because we don't have the same kind of leverage the US does - certainly not against China, the EU and the US. Chile, maybe, but they are not important.
It takes time, sure, but that's democracy in a customs union.
Take a look at how many EU FTAs there are.
The idea that the EU is a moribund autarchy is another Brexit myth. (See also, "the EU is holding us back from being a successful exporter").
Our exports to the EU are said to be shrinking at a rate of 1% p.a. by ONS over the last eight years, while global exports are growing at 5% per annum. The EU has transitioned to minority market for us.
Even without a helping hand, that trend points to the EU being under 30% of our exports within another seven to eight years.
Gaining free and willing partners from elsewhere will most probably see this accelerate, and without the social impositions that the public object to.
The EU has declined relatively as a trading partner as our business with the emerging markets of China etc has grown. To be expected.
It is still by far our largest market, though - not a "minority market", whatever that is.
Cutting ourselves adrift will have significant consequences even if life is ultimately better in the long run (as Brexiters presumably believe it will be, although one hears that said less these days).
Britain the consumer does not need to tie itself so closely to the EU.
A 44% share of 100% global trade is a minority, and it is shrinking. We are different to most of Europe in having the EU as a minority partner. Non-EU is the majority for us.
As Mark Senior reports there is a Lib Dem improvement, mainly in the south, but the conservatives are doing well in Scotland, Wales and most of England, while Labour is losing all over the Country with one or two exceptions
I do not think the conservatives are below 40% but I do think the Lib Dems are at 10% or a little more, UKIP near 12% and labour in the region of 26%. I would expect the Lib Dems and UKIP to crossover in the early new year
Re a joint trade deal with the US and Canada it would be a big vote of confidence, especially if there is a memorandum of intention before we leave the EU
The big issue is how Trump sees the EU. If, and it is a very big if, he is listening to Farage and downplays the EU it could have very serious consequences for them .
Trump's relationship, or otherwise, with Merkel will be fascinating. She did take the high moral ground with him when Trump won the election.and she is very close to Obama, even though he will shortly be out of Office
These are amazing times we are living through
Which other free trade area/deal imposes the social rules the EU does? It's out of kilter.
I have a notion of an explanation, which is that the much maligned Euro is doing its job of encouraging trade and that spills outside the Eurozone itself. This doesn't have anything to do with Brexit by the way. We were never going to join the Euro.
The three most recent polls have given Labour poll ratings of 27%, 29% and now 31%. On that basis 26% seems too low - particularly as ICM has tended to understate Labour and last had them on 27%.
One thing that will become clear over the coming months is whether Farage has that power or he has not
Non-EU member states: 166*
(* UN member states)
Greatest annual growth in exports to the UK are coming from Lithuania, Bulgaria, Poland. Cheap labour?
Growth from the old EU is very small, if at all - with the exception of the Germans who are skilfully managing an undervalued currency courtesy of the Greeks et al.
It's hard to see what has been in the EU's eastern expansion for us in terms of exports. It's a similar question to the one confronting the Americans about Mexico.
Non EU States 93% of world population.
Yet tying ourselves to the 7% actively inhibits our trade with the other 93%.
It won't be a surprise:
https://twitter.com/michaelharrisdr/status/809944310716203009
A new NAFTA replacing Mexico with Britain makes sense for both sides.
The Netherlands for instance is simply a large port for German products leaving the EU.
As is Hong Kong for Chinese products leaving China.