We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back.
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
But, over the slightly longer term, our trade with non-EU countries balances.
Just as a matter of interest, which products that we currently import from the EU do you think we would not longer need to import post-Brexit?
Which do you think we would?
For our overall trade deficit to be smaller, our import bill would need to be lower. We could achieve that by paying less for imports (which we would be able to with food). Or by buying less in general.
Less in general would mean pushing our savings rate up. (Or, conversely, by reducing the consumption share of GDP.)
But a lower pound which many Leavers seem to want and most people expect would mean pushing up our import bill .
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back.
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back.
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
But, over the slightly longer term, our trade with non-EU countries balances.
Just as a matter of interest, which products that we currently import from the EU do you think we would not longer need to import post-Brexit?
Which do you think we would?
For our overall trade deficit to be smaller, our import bill would need to be lower. We could achieve that by paying less for imports (which we would be able to with food). Or by buying less in general.
Less in general would mean pushing our savings rate up. (Or, conversely, by reducing the consumption share of GDP.)
I think your argument on savings is interesting and I am sure has merit, but that doesn't answer my (inspired by your) question. What do we 'need' to import currently from the EU that wouldn't be able to import from elsewhere or substitute ourselves?
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back.
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
But, over the slightly longer term, our trade with non-EU countries balances.
Just as a matter of interest, which products that we currently import from the EU do you think we would not longer need to import post-Brexit?
My view is that it's easier to achieve a Single Market in goods than a Single Market in services. For example, we're not going to see a situation any time soon where you could qualify as a Solicitor in England and Wales, and then go and practise as a Notario in Italy. We tend to be very good at exporting services, but much less good at exporting goods. So, a Single Market in goods will tend to work better for goods manufacturers selling to us, than it does for our services exporters selling into the EU.
And, the only way of achieving a Single Market in services would be through massive (and I believe unacceptable) reductions in sovereignty, such a creating a harmonised legal system throughout the EU.
Why do people think a trade surplus is good or a trade deficit is bad? It merely reflects beliefs about future growth paths; if people think sterling is a long-term better bet than their own currency, they will be eager to accept sterling on net, in exchange for things denominated in their own currency. Simplifying a little, that's a trade deficit.
kle4- to Brexiters- if we vote remain, we know pretty much what we are going to get. The EU will muddle along with all it's imperfections, the British economy will be relatively stable but still susceptible to global shocks as it was ever thus, London will continue to power ahead.
But with Brexit- there is a strong chance there will be an immediate run on sterling, and a flow of capital out of the UK. A one off shock would be OK- but this is likely to be accompanied by years of political and economic uncertainty which are likely to exacerbate any normal recessionary cycle. And we will be hit by the spectre of inflation- the imported inflation that we faced in the 70's, except poor productivity and recessionary factors will keep wages down.
The EU will have to punish the UK for a Brexit. It cannot afford to let the UK thrive outside, so we'll get the worst trading terms.
If the UK gets poorer- and the scaremongering from remain is proved to be right, who do I blame?
"The EU will have to punish the UK for a Brexit."
And these are the feckers you want us to stay wedded to?
Doesn't work like that. Countries will just become more protectionist to protect their own workers. They can't within the EU but they will when we're outside. It's only what we're planning to do. Keep out EU workers to protect our own
Delay in negotiating access to UK markets will hasten the death of the EU. Their call....
UK exports to EU - 6.6% of its total GDP EU exports to UK - 1.9% of its total GDP
QED
The EU (excl UK) is 27 individual nations - with some very different needs, gains and losses at stake from their bi-lateral relationships with us,
There are several who have too much in the game to allow a protracted problem.
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back.
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
But, over the slightly longer term, our trade with non-EU countries balances.
Just as a matter of interest, which products that we currently import from the EU do you think we would not longer need to import post-Brexit?
Which do you think we would?
For our overall trade deficit to be smaller, our import bill would need to be lower. We could achieve that by paying less for imports (which we would be able to with food). Or by buying less in general.
Less in general would mean pushing our savings rate up. (Or, conversely, by reducing the consumption share of GDP.)
I think your argument on savings is interesting and I am sure has merit, but that doesn't answer my (inspired by your) question. What do we 'need' to import currently from the EU that wouldn't be able to import from elsewhere or substitute ourselves?
But if we import it from somewhere else, then our overall trade deficit doesn't change! It just moves from EU to RoW.
kle4- to Brexiters- if we vote remain, we know pretty much what we are going to get. The EU will muddle along with all it's imperfections, the British economy will be relatively stable but still susceptible to global shocks as it was ever thus, London will continue to power ahead.
But with Brexit- there is a strong chance there will be an immediate run on sterling, and a flow of capital out of the UK. A one off shock would be OK- but this is likely to be accompanied by years of political and economic uncertainty which are likely to exacerbate any normal recessionary cycle. And we will be hit by the spectre of inflation- the imported inflation that we faced in the 70's, except poor productivity and recessionary factors will keep wages down.
The EU will have to punish the UK for a Brexit. It cannot afford to let the UK thrive outside, so we'll get the worst trading terms.
If the UK gets poorer- and the scaremongering from remain is proved to be right, who do I blame?
"The EU will have to punish the UK for a Brexit."
And these are the feckers you want us to stay wedded to?
Doesn't work like that. Countries will just become more protectionist to protect their own workers. They can't within the EU but they will when we're outside. It's only what we're planning to do. Keep out EU workers to protect our own
Delay in negotiating access to UK markets will hasten the death of the EU. Their call....
UK exports to EU - 6.6% of its total GDP EU exports to UK - 1.9% of its total GDP
QED
The EU (excl UK) is 27 individual nations - with some very different needs, gains and losses at stake from their bi-lateral relationships with us,
There are several who have too much in the game to allow a protracted problem.
But any deal depends on the several being able to exert enough pressure on the rest (unanimously) to agree.
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back.
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
But, over the slightly longer term, our trade with non-EU countries balances.
Just as a matter of interest, which products that we currently import from the EU do you think we would not longer need to import post-Brexit?
Which do you think we would?
For our overall trade deficit to be smaller, our import bill would need to be lower. We could achieve that by paying less for imports (which we would be able to with food). Or by buying less in general.
Less in general would mean pushing our savings rate up. (Or, conversely, by reducing the consumption share of GDP.)
Or by making more of it ourselves, a concept which appears to be totally alien to many on the board.
Breaking: State of Emergency declared in Orlando, maybe all Florida?
Horrendous news if 50 dead 50 injured.
Cynical - better get on Trump @ 4 then - A good day to make a move in the betting markets.
This ain't good - however it might have an effect on the UK referendum as well - people will look at the incident and not dissect the cause.
The shooter may be a Muslim but the victims were largely homosexuals, not exactly Trump's demographic
I suspect that simple demographic arithmetic will not be a good guide to this election. Trump is a master at reframing an issue and you may find that it's some of the least likely groups who will be the ones to switch to him.
Trump is not going to win the gay vote, he opposes gay marriage for starters
If you are targeted for murder because of your sexuality you might be more concerned to have a President who will strive to keep you safe.
Not saying that Trump necessarily is that man. But events sometimes change peoples' priorities.
There is no evidence he will keep you safe, his travel ban on Muslims would not have stopped this shooting, the shooter was a US citizen
As has been mentioned - it would have stopped his parents.
No it would not as it would not have been retrospective, short of interning every Muslim in the US, clearly against the constitution, Trump's policy would not have stopped this shooter
They mean if we went back in time and implemented it. Still, stupid idea now, stupid idea then. Proper gun control would be a better approach, but no one wants to touch that with a barge pole.
If a few of those Gay people had had guns then maybe more of them would have lived.
That's right. The nightclub probably had a no guns rule, which prevents self-defence. Shootings tend to occur in "no gun safe zones" like colleges and cinemas because in those areas only the villains are armed. Gun 'control' is a large part of the problem, not the solution.
So the more gun 'control' in a country, the more killings?
Breaking: State of Emergency declared in Orlando, maybe all Florida?
Horrendous news if 50 dead 50 injured.
Cynical - better get on Trump @ 4 then - A good day to make a move in the betting markets.
This ain't good - however it might have an effect on the UK referendum as well - people will look at the incident and not dissect the cause.
The shooter may be a Muslim but the victims were largely homosexuals, not exactly Trump's demographic
I suspect that simple demographic arithmetic will not be a good guide to this election. Trump is a master at reframing an issue and you may find that it's some of the least likely groups who will be the ones to switch to him.
Trump is not going to win the gay vote, he opposes gay marriage for starters
If you are targeted for murder because of your sexuality you might be more concerned to have a President who will strive to keep you safe.
Not saying that Trump necessarily is that man. But events sometimes change peoples' priorities.
There is no evidence he will keep you safe, his travel ban on Muslims would not have stopped this shooting, the shooter was a US citizen
As has been mentioned - it would have stopped his parents.
No it would not as it would not have been retrospective, short of interning every Muslim in the US, clearly against the constitution, Trump's policy would not have stopped this shooter
They mean if we went back in time and implemented it. Still, stupid idea now, stupid idea then. Proper gun control would be a better approach, but no one wants to touch that with a barge pole.
If a few of those Gay people had had guns then maybe more of them would have lived.
That's right. The nightclub probably had a no guns rule, which prevents self-defence. Shootings tend to occur in "no gun safe zones" like colleges and cinemas because in those areas only the villains are armed. Gun 'control' is a large part of the problem, not the solution.
I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. If you're serious then no, there will always be gun-free (for law abiding citizens) areas like cinemas and colleges and shopping malls. The key is to make the whole nation gun-free.
Snowballs chance in hell of it happening in the USA, but sane people need to keep making the argument which is the only way it ever will be possible.
I am being entirely serious - for the record I'm a big 2nd Amendment supporter and strongly believe in the right to self defence..
Although i'm not sure quite how Leavers are intending to get around the possibility of just one country scuppering/delaying any deal for internal political reasons. Will some countries have to have a referendum?
It depends on the nature of the heads of agreement that will be negotiated. Some countries will require parliamentary approvals, others will require referendums.
Tinfoil hat wearers will see that the withdrawal from the EU can be prolonged ad nauseam if it suits all parties.
I'm not sures. The deadline for withdrawal will be timetabled - two years from Article 50 being activated. What isn't clear is what happens if an agreement hasn't been ratified at the 2 year point.
This is the text from the Lisbon Treaty:
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
I think it's clear. If nothing is agreed after two years and unless all 28 EU countries agree to an extension, the UK would leave with nothing. I am pretty sure the EU would agree a minimal something at one of their all nighters but it puts the country leaving into a particularly weak negotiating position
Having said that, I believe people will realise very quickly after the vote, if not before, that a straight switch from a comprehensive system to nothing very much at all will deliver a severe economic shock. There will be a scramble to get an EEA agreement in place. Immigration would continues as now - but, hey, if David Cameron can win an election on a dishonest claim about immigration, Leave can win a referendum on the same claim. It's not as if Leave are concerned about the truthfulness of their £350 million a week and Turkey joining the EU claims, after all.
The standard of debate on here is pretty low. Cameron did not make a dishonest claim about immigration. Read the manifesto - the proposed limit was an ambition .
I was being polite to Leave, which is possibly the most dishonest political campaign I have been subjected to. More so than the Yes Scotland campaign in 2014, which itself was a dodgy affair.
To be clear I am talking about the campaigns themselves, not the choices, which are reasonable ones.
The Remain campaign is far more dishonest than the Leave campaign (though that is rather like grading the quality of dogsh!t)
Where is the specific dishonesty in the Remain campaign?
Breaking: State of Emergency declared in Orlando, maybe all Florida?
Horrendous news if 50 dead 50 injured.
Cynical - better get on Trump @ 4 then - A good day to make a move in the betting markets.
This ain't good - however it might have an effect on the UK referendum as well - people will look at the incident and not dissect the cause.
The shooter may be a Muslim but the victims were largely homosexuals, not exactly Trump's demographic
I suspect that simple demographic arithmetic will not be a good guide to this election. Trump is a master at reframing an issue and you may find that it's some of the least likely groups who will be the ones to switch to him.
Trump is not going to win the gay vote, he opposes gay marriage for starters
If you are targeted for murder because of your sexuality you might be more concerned to have a President who will strive to keep you safe.
Not saying that Trump necessarily is that man. But events sometimes change peoples' priorities.
There is no evidence he will keep you safe, his travel ban on Muslims would not have stopped this shooting, the shooter was a US citizen
As has been mentioned - it would have stopped his parents.
No it would not as it would not have been retrospective, short of interning every Muslim in the US, clearly against the constitution, Trump's policy would not have stopped this shooter
They mean if we went back in time and implemented it. Still, stupid idea now, stupid idea then. Proper gun control would be a better approach, but no one wants to touch that with a barge pole.
If a few of those Gay people had had guns then maybe more of them would have lived.
That's right. The nightclub probably had a no guns rule, which prevents self-defence. Shootings tend to occur in "no gun safe zones" like colleges and cinemas because in those areas only the villains are armed. Gun 'control' is a large part of the problem, not the solution.
So the more gun 'control' in a country, the more killings?
Yet weirdly the evidence is the opposite is true.
School shootings don't happen by a criminally organised gang using hard to import weaponry. They occur because a hormonal teenager snaps and grabs the family weaponry that is in the home. When a hormonal teenager snaps here they don't have a gun to grab so do something much less horrific.
Breaking: State of Emergency declared in Orlando, maybe all Florida?
Horrendous news if 50 dead 50 injured.
Cynical - better get on Trump @ 4 then - A good day to make a move in the betting markets.
This ain't good - however it might have an effect on the UK referendum as well - people will look at the incident and not dissect the cause.
The shooter may be a Muslim but the victims were largely homosexuals, not exactly Trump's demographic
I suspect that simple demographic arithmetic will not be a good guide to this election. Trump is a master at reframing an issue and you may find that it's some of the least likely groups who will be the ones to switch to him.
Trump is not going to win the gay vote, he opposes gay marriage for starters
If you are targeted for murder because of your sexuality you might be more concerned to have a President who will strive to keep you safe.
Not saying that Trump necessarily is that man. But events sometimes change peoples' priorities.
There is no evidence he will keep you safe, his travel ban on Muslims would not have stopped this shooting, the shooter was a US citizen
As has been mentioned - it would have stopped his parents.
No it would not as it would not have been retrospective, short of interning every Muslim in the US, clearly against the constitution, Trump's policy would not have stopped this shooter
They mean if we went back in time and implemented it. Still, stupid idea now, stupid idea then. Proper gun control would be a better approach, but no one wants to touch that with a barge pole.
If a few of those Gay people had had guns then maybe more of them would have lived.
That's right. The nightclub probably had a no guns rule, which prevents self-defence. Shootings tend to occur in "no gun safe zones" like colleges and cinemas because in those areas only the villains are armed. Gun 'control' is a large part of the problem, not the solution.
So the more gun 'control' in a country, the more killings?
Yes, because only law-abiding citizens obey the controls.
Breaking: State of Emergency declared in Orlando, maybe all Florida?
Horrendous news if 50 dead 50 injured.
Cynical - better get on Trump @ 4 then - A good day to make a move in the betting markets.
This ain't good - however it might have an effect on the UK referendum as well - people will look at the incident and not dissect the cause.
The shooter may be a Muslim but the victims were largely homosexuals, not exactly Trump's demographic
I suspect that simple demographic arithmetic will not be a good guide to this election. Trump is a master at reframing an issue and you may find that it's some of the least likely groups who will be the ones to switch to him.
Trump is not going to win the gay vote, he opposes gay marriage for starters
If you are targeted for murder because of your sexuality you might be more concerned to have a President who will strive to keep you safe.
Not saying that Trump necessarily is that man. But events sometimes change peoples' priorities.
There is no evidence he will keep you safe, his travel ban on Muslims would not have stopped this shooting, the shooter was a US citizen
As has been mentioned - it would have stopped his parents.
No it would not as it would not have been retrospective, short of interning every Muslim in the US, clearly against the constitution, Trump's policy would not have stopped this shooter
They mean if we went back in time and implemented it. Still, stupid idea now, stupid idea then. Proper gun control would be a better approach, but no one wants to touch that with a barge pole.
If a few of those Gay people had had guns then maybe more of them would have lived.
That's right. The nightclub probably had a no guns rule, which prevents self-defence. Shootings tend to occur in "no gun safe zones" like colleges and cinemas because in those areas only the villains are armed. Gun 'control' is a large part of the problem, not the solution.
So the more gun 'control' in a country, the more killings?
Yes, because only law-abiding citizens obey the controls.
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back.
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
But, over the slightly longer term, our trade with non-EU countries balances.
Just as a matter of interest, which products that we currently import from the EU do you think we would not longer need to import post-Brexit?
Which do you think we would?
For our overall trade deficit to be smaller, our import bill would need to be lower. We could achieve that by paying less for imports (which we would be able to with food). Or by buying less in general.
Less in general would mean pushing our savings rate up. (Or, conversely, by reducing the consumption share of GDP.)
I think your argument on savings is interesting and I am sure has merit, but that doesn't answer my (inspired by your) question. What do we 'need' to import currently from the EU that wouldn't be able to import from elsewhere or substitute ourselves?
But if we import it from somewhere else, then our overall trade deficit doesn't change! It just moves from EU to RoW.
As you yourself suggest, it could be cheaper. For example, I see little point in subsidising European sugarbeet production when Jamaican sugar cane would appear to be a more efficient source of sugar. Turn those sugarbeet fields over to producing proper food.
It might or might not be in the interests of UK firms to see a contraction of trade with the EU. such is the scale of the trade imbalance. Were the UK's trade with the EU to be broadly in balance, and had the UK's manufacturing capacity not shrunk at such an extraordinary pace since 1973, then the "might not" would be much the better case. But in the actual context it's far from clear.
What is beyond dispute is that with a huge trade surplus with the UK, it is certainly not in the German's interests to "f*ck themselves in some game of brinkmanship". So as I said, Schauble's threats are utterly empty, and VW and Bosch aren't going to let him follow through on them in an EU in hock to corporate interests. That means the UK would be in a far stronger negotiating position were negotiations to open, such that concessions could be gained in return for allowing EU access to UK markets (and vice versa) but while we are bound by EU membership such negotiations are out of bounds. Which is of course how the Germans would like matters to stay.
You are really beginning to scare me.
Trade is not - by and large - the consequence of government policy, but the sum of millions of decisions by individual firms and consumers.
There are many firms in the UK and in Europe that are part of integrated supply chains. Cars "made in Germany" may have British gearboxes, Chinese LCD screens, and French windscreen wipers. It beggars belief that you think that the British gearbox company would somehow benefit from a trade war.
I am a free trader. I would remove all tariffs on all goods and services. I would hope we could persuade our partners to do the same. But the idea that the UK government can improve the performance of British businesses by inhibiting their trade is genuinely terrifying.
If Remain have this correct and we enter their doomsday scenario, tariffs will be rendered irrelevant because sterling will have adjusted to negate the effect on UK export companies. It also favours domestic producers.
Breaking: State of Emergency declared in Orlando, maybe all Florida?
Horrendous news if 50 dead 50 injured.
Cynical - better get on Trump @ 4 then - A good day to make a move in the betting markets.
This ain't good - however it might have an effect on the UK referendum as well - people will look at the incident and not dissect the cause.
The shooter may be a Muslim but the victims were largely homosexuals, not exactly Trump's demographic
I suspect that simple demographic arithmetic will not be a good guide to this election. Trump is a master at reframing an issue and you may find that it's some of the least likely groups who will be the ones to switch to him.
Trump is not going to win the gay vote, he opposes gay marriage for starters
If you are targeted for murder because of your sexuality you might be more concerned to have a President who will strive to keep you safe.
Not saying that Trump necessarily is that man. But events sometimes change peoples' priorities.
There is no evidence he will keep you safe, his travel ban on Muslims would not have stopped this shooting, the shooter was a US citizen
As has been mentioned - it would have stopped his parents.
No it would not as it would not have been retrospective, short of interning every Muslim in the US, clearly against the constitution, Trump's policy would not have stopped this shooter
They mean if we went back in time and implemented it. Still, stupid idea now, stupid idea then. Proper gun control would be a better approach, but no one wants to touch that with a barge pole.
If a few of those Gay people had had guns then maybe more of them would have lived.
That's right. The nightclub probably had a no guns rule, which prevents self-defence. Shootings tend to occur in "no gun safe zones" like colleges and cinemas because in those areas only the villains are armed. Gun 'control' is a large part of the problem, not the solution.
So the more gun 'control' in a country, the more killings?
Yes, because only law-abiding citizens obey the controls.
Except that the shootings largely don't occur by lifelong criminals. They occur by people snapping and doing something out of character and easily accessible and irreversible. They can't here so don't.
When did the last school shootings occur in the UK by a student who had imported a criminal arsenal of weapons?
Mr. Fenman, unfortunately, by opening with economic collapse and World War Three, people aren't taking Remain's warnings as seriously as they might.
Mr. Mark, my trebuchets will never be taken away. Those who try will incur the wrath of the enormo-haddock.
Mr.Dancer. Post-brexit, I think you'll have to find another word for trebuchet. Unfortunately, both latin (fustibalus) and greek (cheiromangana) terms will also be unacceptable at that point for the same reason. Perhaps 'double-action sling shot'? Or the Arabic manajaniq
Going by that - half the English Language, at least, will be unacceptable - at least the staff at Kew Gardens will have permanent employment re-naming all the species past and present.
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back. 0
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back. 0
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back.
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
But, over the slightly longer term, our trade with non-EU countries balances.
Just as a matter of interest, which products that we currently import from the EU do you think we would not longer need to import post-Brexit?
Which do you think we would?
For our overall trade deficit to be smaller, our import bill would need to be lower. We could achieve that by paying less for imports (which we would be able to with food). Or by buying less in general.
Less in general would mean pushing our savings rate up. (Or, conversely, by reducing the consumption share of GDP.)
I think your argument on savings is interesting and I am sure has merit, but that doesn't answer my (inspired by your) question. What do we 'need' to import currently from the EU that wouldn't be able to import from elsewhere or substitute ourselves?
But if we import it from somewhere else, then our overall trade deficit doesn't change! It just moves from EU to RoW.
As you yourself suggest, it could be cheaper. For example, I see little point in subsidising European sugarbeet production when Jamaican sugar cane would appear to be a more efficient source of sugar. Turn those sugarbeet fields over to producing proper food.
Indeed, the Common Agricultural Policy is one of the greatest crimes committed against humanity.
"he was a lone nutter with a gun whose links to wider groups were self-declared or imaginary."
So the FBI are imagining it?
Realistically, Obama won't go big on the ISIS link, it's too big a gift for Trump. A very sensitive time at the moment, so it will be swept up in a general "terrorism" problem.
Breaking: State of Emergency declared in Orlando, maybe all Florida?
Horrendous news if 50 dead 50 injured.
Cynical - better get on Trump @ 4 then - A good day to make a move in the betting markets.
This ain't good - however it might have an effect on the UK referendum as well - people will look at the incident and not dissect the cause.
The shooter may be a Muslim but the victims were largely homosexuals, not exactly Trump's demographic
I suspect that simple demographic arithmetic will not be a good guide to this election. Trump is a master at reframing an issue and you may find that it's some of the least likely groups who will be the ones to switch to him.
Trump is not going to win the gay vote, he opposes gay marriage for starters
If you are targeted for murder because of your sexuality you might be more concerned to have a President who will strive to keep you safe.
Not saying that Trump necessarily is that man. But events sometimes change peoples' priorities.
There is no evidence he will keep you safe, his travel ban on Muslims would not have stopped this shooting, the shooter was a US citizen
As has been mentioned - it would have stopped his parents.
No it would not as it would not have been retrospective, short of interning every Muslim in the US, clearly against the constitution, Trump's policy would not have stopped this shooter
They mean if we went back in time and implemented it. Still, stupid idea now, stupid idea then. Proper gun control would be a better approach, but no one wants to touch that with a barge pole.
If a few of those Gay people had had guns then maybe more of them would have lived.
That's right. The nightclub probably had a no guns rule, which prevents self-defence. Shootings tend to occur in "no gun safe zones" like colleges and cinemas because in those areas only the villains are armed. Gun 'control' is a large part of the problem, not the solution.
So the more gun 'control' in a country, the more killings?
Yeah gun control sure stopped Bataclan, Brussels, Utøya...
This is the worst shooting in recent history in the US, but there have been far worse events in countries around the world with strict gun control. It's just lefties jump on everything that happens in the US to distort the truth.
Although i'm not sure quntries have to have a referendum?
pprovals, others will require referendums.
Tinfoil hat wearers will seeies.
I'm not sures. The deadline for withdrawal will be timetabled - two years from Article 50 being activated. What isn't clear is what happens if an agreement hasn't been ratified at the 2 year point.
My guess is that they will find that we've gone off and struck better deals elsewhere.
There's a big wide world with lots of opportunity in it.
Something of a non-sequitur. Whether we've "struck deals elsewhere" is irrelevant to what happens to our trading relationship with the EU, at enforced point of exit. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
It matters enormously in terms of whether we are better off or worse off.
I wonder how long it would take us to sign the deal that the EU have been trying to strike with Canada for seven years if we were free to act unilaterally, for example?
This is where remain have a point, and it can't be hand waved away. Our top trading partners ( apologies for cherrypicking, this is from April 2016) figures are, in order, Germany, USA, Switzerland, France and China [Imports], and USA, Germany, France, the Netherlands [exports]. Canada is noise level in comparison.
And outside the EU members and Switzerland the EU has failed to secure a comprehensive trade deal with any of those countries. And the trade deal they are looking to secure with the US comes with so much extra baggage included it is very likely going to fall before it gets anywhere near agreement.
The question has to be asked, how could we actually do any worse than the EU has done?
Here's a question Richard.
I'm sure we could do all kind of trade deals here there and everywhere, but many economists have forecast that there will be a diminution in GDP in the coming years if we leave.
Do you think that in aggregate we would be able, economically, to put ourselves in a better place if we left? It is a bold assumption (and I don't think you are an economist).
I get the Freedom! debate - freedom for UK kettle manufacturers to make kettles howsoever they goddamn please. But aggregate GDP levels? Not so sure.
For coherence, unless you are Patrick Minford, then I would stick with the Freedom thing: It is a price worth paying for our sovereignty to leave the EU.
A diminution in GDP? Or in GDP per Capita?
They have very different impacts on individuals.
Agree. NIESR has a 0.8% per capita diminution in GDP many years out.
And it's an interesting discussion. Do we want to be constantly growing as an economy, keeping track with our neighbours and not-so-close neighbours, or do we want to carry on, each of us slightly less well off (in aggregate moreso) as a country.
We want a steady growth per capita not necessarily a steady growth overall. They are very different things.
Under that scenario you don't get a steady growth per capita. You get a substantial GDP contraction in aggregate and a significant GDP contraction (approx. 1%) per capita.
Hardly the sunlit uplands of a thriving economy, is it?
Breaking: State of Emergency declared in Orlando, maybe all Florida?
Horrendous news if 50 dead 50 injured.
Cynical - better get on Trump @ 4 then - A good day to make a move in the betting markets.
This ain't good - however it might have an effect on the UK referendum as well - people will look at the incident and not dissect the cause.
The shooter may be a Muslim but the victims were largely homosexuals, not exactly Trump's demographic
I suspect that simple demographic arithmetic will not be a good guide to this election. Trump is a master at reframing an issue and you may find that it's some of the least likely groups who will be the ones to switch to him.
Trump is not going to win the gay vote, he opposes gay marriage for starters
If you are targeted for murder because of your sexuality you might be more concerned to have a President who will strive to keep you safe.
Not saying that Trump necessarily is that man. But events sometimes change peoples' priorities.
There is no evidence he will keep you safe, his travel ban on Muslims would not have stopped this shooting, the shooter was a US citizen
As has been mentioned - it would have stopped his parents.
No it would not as it would not have been retrospective, short of interning every Muslim in the US, clearly against the constitution, Trump's policy would not have stopped this shooter
They mean if we went back in time and implemented it. Still, stupid idea now, stupid idea then. Proper gun control would be a better approach, but no one wants to touch that with a barge pole.
If a few of those Gay people had had guns then maybe more of them would have lived.
That's right. The nightclub probably had a no guns rule, which prevents self-defence. Shootings tend to occur in "no gun safe zones" like colleges and cinemas because in those areas only the villains are armed. Gun 'control' is a large part of the problem, not the solution.
So the more gun 'control' in a country, the more killings?
Yep, gun control sure stopped Bataclan, Brussels, Utøya...
This is the worst shooting in recent US history in the US, but there have been far worse events in countries around the world with strict gun control. It's just lefties jump on everything that happens in the US to distort the truth.
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back.
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
But, over the slightly longer term, our trade with non-EU countries balances.
Just as a matter of interest, which products that we currently import from the EU do you think we would not longer need to import post-Brexit?
Which do you think we would?
For our overall trade deficit to be smaller, our import bill would need to be lower. We could achieve that by paying less for imports (which we would be able to with food). Or by buying less in general.
Less in general would mean pushing our savings rate up. (Or, conversely, by reducing the consumption share of GDP.)
I think your argument on savings is interesting and I am sure has merit, but that doesn't answer my (inspired by your) question. What do we 'need' to import currently from the EU that wouldn't be able to import from elsewhere or substitute ourselves?
But if we import it from somewhere else, then our overall trade deficit doesn't change! It just moves from EU to RoW.
If something costs £100 on a free global market but is presently subject to an 8% tariff so is bought for £106 from an EU nation then leaving could see a £6 saving if we drop the tariffs.
kle4- to Brexiters- if we vote remain, we know pretty much what we are going to get. The EU will muddle along with all it's imperfections, the British economy will be relatively stable but still susceptible to global shocks as it was ever thus, London will continue to power ahead.
But with Brexit- there is a strong chance there will be an immediate run on sterling, and a flow of capital out of the UK. A one off shock would be OK- but this is likely to be accompanied by years of political and economic uncertainty which are likely to exacerbate any normal recessionary cycle. And we will be hit by the spectre of inflation- the imported inflation that we faced in the 70's, except poor productivity and recessionary factors will keep wages down.
The EU will have to punish the UK for a Brexit. It cannot afford to let the UK thrive outside, so we'll get the worst trading terms.
If the UK gets poorer- and the scaremongering from remain is proved to be right, who do I blame?
"The EU will have to punish the UK for a Brexit."
And these are the feckers you want us to stay wedded to?
Doesn't work like that. Countries will just become more protectionist to protect their own workers. They can't within the EU but they will when we're outside. It's only what we're planning to do. Keep out EU workers to protect our own
Delay in negotiating access to UK markets will hasten the death of the EU. Their call....
UK exports to EU - 6.6% of its total GDP EU exports to UK - 1.9% of its total GDP
QED
The EU (excl UK) is 27 individual nations - with some very different needs, gains and losses at stake from their bi-lateral relationships with us,
There are several who have too much in the game to allow a protracted problem.
But any deal depends on the several being able to exert enough pressure on the rest (unanimously) to agree.
Possibly, but a failure to come to terms when an individual country has a significant need for a deal increases the chance of that country going for a break or really exerting pressure.
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back.
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
But, over the slightly longer term, our trade with non-EU countries balances.
Just as a matter of interest, which products that we currently import from the EU do you think we would not longer need to import post-Brexit?
Which do you think we would?
For our overall trade deficit to be smaller, our import bill would need to be lower. We could achieve that by paying less for imports (which we would be able to with food). Or by buying less in general.
Less in general would mean pushing our savings rate up. (Or, conversely, by reducing the consumption share of GDP.)
I think your argument on savings is interesting and I am sure has merit, but that doesn't answer my (inspired by your) question. What do we 'need' to import currently from the EU that wouldn't be able to import from elsewhere or substitute ourselves?
But if we import it from somewhere else, then our overall trade deficit doesn't change! It just moves from EU to RoW.
As you yourself suggest, it could be cheaper. For example, I see little point in subsidising European sugarbeet production when Jamaican sugar cane would appear to be a more efficient source of sugar. Turn those sugarbeet fields over to producing proper food.
I think we're in general agreement. There are gains - particularly as regards cheaper food imports - which could reduce our trade deficit. But Brexit in itself is no panacea, it does nothing to change the fact that the British economy is frighteningly unbalanced, with overleveraged consumers buying too much foreign tat they don't really need. And British consumers hunger for credit (paying 20+% for credit cards) prices British businesses out of the market.
One of the reasons we should leave the EU is because we need to face up to our problems, and take responsibility.
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back. 0
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
Unfortunately, the question isn't "What does Europe have that no one else does?", it's "What does Europe have that no one else does more cheaply?" - to which the answer is "um, quite a lot".
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back.
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
But, over the slightly longer term, our trade with non-EU countries balances.
Just as a matter of interest, which products that we currently import from the EU do you think we would not longer need to import post-Brexit?
Which do you think we would?
For our overall trade deficit to be smaller, our import bill would need to be lower. We could achieve that by paying less for imports (which we would be able to with food). Or by buying less in general.
Less in general would mean pushing our savings rate up. (Or, conversely, by reducing the consumption share of GDP.)
I think your argument on savings is interesting and I am sure has merit, but that doesn't answer my (inspired by your) question. What do we 'need' to import currently from the EU that wouldn't be able to import from elsewhere or substitute ourselves?
But if we import it from somewhere else, then our overall trade deficit doesn't change! It just moves from EU to RoW.
If something costs £100 on a free global market but is presently subject to an 8% tariff so is bought for £106 from an EU nation then leaving could see a £6 saving if we drop the tariffs.
But if the £ falls 20% against the currency you are purchasing in then it will cost you more .
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back.
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
But, over the slightly longer term, our trade with non-EU countries balances.
Just as a matter of interest, which products that we currently import from the EU do you think we would not longer need to import post-Brexit?
Which do you think we would?
For our overall trade deficit to be smaller, our import bill would need to be lower. We could achieve that by paying less for imports (which we would be able to with food). Or by buying less in general.
Less in general would mean pushing our savings rate up. (Or, conversely, by reducing the consumption share of GDP.)
I think your argument on savings is interesting and I am sure has merit, but that doesn't answer my (inspired by your) question. What do we 'need' to import currently from the EU that wouldn't be able to import from elsewhere or substitute ourselves?
But if we import it from somewhere else, then our overall trade deficit doesn't change! It just moves from EU to RoW.
If something costs £100 on a free global market but is presently subject to an 8% tariff so is bought for £106 from an EU nation then leaving could see a £6 saving if we drop the tariffs.
Or we could halve them - make things cheaper AND earn extra money for the Government.
Breaking: State of Emergency declared in Orlando, maybe all Florida?
Horrendous news if 50 dead 50 injured.
Cynical - better get on Trump @ 4 then - A good day to make a move in the betting markets.
This ain't good - however it might have an effect on the UK referendum as well - people will look at the incident and not dissect the cause.
The shooter may be a Muslim but the victims were largely homosexuals, not exactly Trump's demographic
I suspect that simple demographic arithmetic will not be a good guide to this election. Trump is a master at reframing an issue and you may find that it's some of the least likely groups who will be the ones to switch to him.
Trump is not going to win the gay vote, he opposes gay marriage for starters
If you are targeted for murder because of your sexuality you might be more concerned to have a President who will strive to keep you safe.
Not saying that Trump necessarily is that man. But events sometimes change peoples' priorities.
There is no evidence he will keep you safe, his travel ban on Muslims would not have stopped this shooting, the shooter was a US citizen
As has been mentioned - it would have stopped his parents.
No it would not as it would not have been retrospective, short of interning every Muslim in the US, clearly against the constitution, Trump's policy would not have stopped this shooter
They mean if we went back in time and implemented it. Still, stupid idea now, stupid idea then. Proper gun control would be a better approach, but no one wants to touch that with a barge pole.
If a few of those Gay people had had guns then maybe more of them would have lived.
That's right. The nightclub probably had a no guns rule, which prevents self-defence. Shootings tend to occur in "no gun safe zones" like colleges and cinemas because in those areas only the villains are armed. Gun 'control' is a large part of the problem, not the solution.
So the more gun 'control' in a country, the more killings?
Yep, gun control sure stopped Bataclan, Brussels, Utøya...
This is the worst shooting in recent US history in the US, but there have been far worse events in countries around the world with strict gun control. It's just lefties jump on everything that happens in the US to distort the truth.
Corrected it for you.
Well quite, which precisely ruins the argument that access to guns for civilians is what leads to events like this. Surely the US would have had far worse shootings by now?
I think we're in general agreement. There are gains - particularly as regards cheaper food imports - which could reduce our trade deficit. But Brexit in itself is no panacea, it does nothing to change the fact that the British economy is frighteningly unbalanced, with overleveraged consumers buying too much foreign tat they don't really need. And British consumers hunger for credit (paying 20+% for credit cards) prices British businesses out of the market.
One of the reasons we should leave the EU is because we need to face up to our problems, and take responsibility.
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annuk.
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
ta.aspx
But, over the slightly longer term, our trade with non-EU countries balances.
Just as a matter of interest, which products that we currently import from the EU do you think we would not longer need to import post-Brexit?
Which do you think we would?
For our overall trade deficit to be smaller, our import bill would need to be lower. We could achieve that by paying less for imports (which we would be able to with food). Or by buying less in general.
Less in general would mean pushing our savings rate up. (Or, conversely, by reducing the consumption share of GDP.)
I think your argument on savings is interesting and I am sure has merit, but that doesn't answer my (inspired by your) question. What do we 'need' to import currently from the EU that wouldn't be able to import from elsewhere or substitute ourselves?
But if we import it from somewhere else, then our overall trade deficit doesn't change! It just moves from EU to RoW.
As you yourself suggest, it could be cheaper. For example, I see little point in subsidising European sugarbeet production when Jamaican sugar cane would appear to be a more efficient source of sugar. Turn those sugarbeet fields over to producing proper food.
I think we're in general agreement. There are gains - particularly as regards cheaper food imports - which could reduce our trade deficit. But Brexit in itself is no panacea, it does nothing to change the fact that the British economy is frighteningly unbalanced, with overleveraged consumers buying too much foreign tat they don't really need. And British consumers hunger for credit (paying 20+% for credit cards) prices British businesses out of the market.
One of the reasons we should leave the EU is because we need to face up to our problems, and take responsibility.
So cold turkey. What was that definition of insanity?
You mentioned another poster was seriously worrying you. For all the rational responses you are giving to anti-EU posters, you are seriously worrying me.
It seems that your objection to the EU (same as @Alanbrooke) is that it is allowing the feckless, overspending, undermanufacturing UK to stay as is.
If ever there was a case of attacking the symptom not the cause...
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back. 0
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
Breaking: State of Emergency declared in Orlando, maybe all Florida?
Horrendous news if 50 dead 50 injured.
Cynical - better get on Trump @ 4 then - A good day to make a move in the betting markets.
This ain't good - however it might have an effect on the UK referendum as well - people will look at the incident and not dissect the cause.
The shooter may be a Muslim but the victims were largely homosexuals, not exactly Trump's demographic
I suspect that simple demographic arithmetic will not be a good guide to this election. Trump is a master at reframing an issue and you may find that it's some of the least likely groups who will be the ones to switch to him.
Trump is not going to win the gay vote, he opposes gay marriage for starters
If you are targeted for murder because of your sexuality you might be more concerned to have a President who will strive to keep you safe.
Not saying that Trump necessarily is that man. But events sometimes change peoples' priorities.
There is no evidence he will keep you safe, his travel ban on Muslims would not have stopped this shooting, the shooter was a US citizen
As has been mentioned - it would have stopped his parents.
No it would not as it would not have been retrospective, short of interning every Muslim in the US, clearly against the constitution, Trump's policy would not have stopped this shooter
They mean if we went back in time and implemented it. Still, stupid idea now, stupid idea then. Proper gun control would be a better approach, but no one wants to touch that with a barge pole.
If a few of those Gay people had had guns then maybe more of them would have lived.
That's right. The nightclub probably had a no guns rule, which prevents self-defence. Shootings tend to occur in "no gun safe zones" like colleges and cinemas because in those areas only the villains are armed. Gun 'control' is a large part of the problem, not the solution.
So the more gun 'control' in a country, the more killings?
Yep, gun control sure stopped Bataclan, Brussels, Utøya...
This is the worst shooting in recent US history in the US, but there have been far worse events in countries around the world with strict gun control. It's just lefties jump on everything that happens in the US to distort the truth.
Corrected it for you.
Well quite, which precisely ruins the argument that access to guns for civilians is what leads to events like this. Surely the US would have had far worse shootings by now?
Gun control probably has little effect either way on organised terrorist outrages. But then mass gun ownership would not make people particularly more secure. It obviously reduces the chances of mass shootings by deranged individuals of the sort that happen with regularity in the United States.
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back.
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
But, over the slightly longer term, our trade with non-EU countries balances.
Just as a matter of interest, which products that we currently import from the EU do you think we would not longer need to import post-Brexit?
Which do you think we would?
For our overall trade deficit to be smaller, our import bill would need to be lower. We could achieve that by paying less for imports (which we would be able to with food). Or by buying less in general.
Less in general would mean pushing our savings rate up. (Or, conversely, by reducing the consumption share of GDP.)
I think your argument on savings is interesting and I am sure has merit, but that doesn't answer my (inspired by your) question. What do we 'need' to import currently from the EU that wouldn't be able to import from elsewhere or substitute ourselves?
But if we import it from somewhere else, then our overall trade deficit doesn't change! It just moves from EU to RoW.
If something costs £100 on a free global market but is presently subject to an 8% tariff so is bought for £106 from an EU nation then leaving could see a £6 saving if we drop the tariffs.
But if the £ falls 20% against the currency you are purchasing in then it will cost you more .
Which will even further help our current account deficit as we will be buying fewer products which are cheaper while exporting more and having more tourism as that is the flip side of devaluation.
Although i'm not sure quntries have to have a referendum?
pprovals, others will require referendums.
Tinfoil hat wearers will seeies.
I'm not sures. The deadline for withdrawal will be timetabled - two years from Article 50 being activated. What isn't clear is what happens if an agreement hasn't been ratified at the 2 year point.
There's a big wide world with lots of opportunity in it.
Something of a non-sequitur. Whether we've "struck deals elsewhere" is irrelevant to what happens to our trading relationship with the EU, at enforced point of exit. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
It matters enormously in terms of whether we are better off or worse off.
I wonder how long it would take us to sign the deal that the EU have been trying to strike with Canada for seven years if we were free to act unilaterally, for example?
This is where remain have a point, and it can't be hand waved away. Our top trading partners ( apologies for cherrypicking, this is from April 2016) figures are, in order, Germany, USA, Switzerland, France and China [Imports], and USA, Germany, France, the Netherlands [exports]. Canada is noise level in comparison.
The question has to be asked, how could we actually do any worse than the EU has done?
Here's a question Richard.
I'm sure we could do all kind of trade deals here there and everywhere, but many economists have forecast that there will be a diminution in GDP in the coming years if we leave.
Do you think that in aggregate we would be able, economically, to put ourselves in a better place if we left? It is a bold assumption (and I don't think you are an economist).
I get the Freedom! debate - freedom for UK kettle manufacturers to make kettles howsoever they goddamn please. But aggregate GDP levels? Not so sure.
For coherence, unless you are Patrick Minford, then I would stick with the Freedom thing: It is a price worth paying for our sovereignty to leave the EU.
A diminution in GDP? Or in GDP per Capita?
They have very different impacts on individuals.
Agree. NIESR has a 0.8% per capita diminution in GDP many years out.
And it's an interesting discussion. Do we want to be constantly growing as an economy, keeping track with our neighbours and not-so-close neighbours, or do we want to carry on, each of us slightly less well off (in aggregate moreso) as a country.
We want a steady growth per capita not necessarily a steady growth overall. They are very different things.
Under that scenario you don't get a steady growth per capita. You get a substantial GDP contraction in aggregate and a significant GDP contraction (approx. 1%) per capita.
Hardly the sunlit uplands of a thriving economy, is it?
The mainstream economic predictions are not that GDP (or GDP per head) will fall in the event of Brexit, but that it will rise at a slightly slower rate. I don't know if that's correct or not, but if it is correct, I see that as a reasonable trade-off for greater self-government. One would have to be a pure materialist to see maximising GDP as the only thing that counts.
A very good question and aside from brands which could, quite easily, be substituted by home produced products or manafactures from elsewhere I am struggling. There must be more but there are only two things I can think of Port and Brandy. Neither of which I would class as strategic necessities but I cannot think of a replacement product that is produced outside of the EU.
Unfortunately, the question isn't "What does Europe have that no one else does?", it's "What does Europe have that no one else does more cheaply?" - to which the answer is "um, quite a lot".
Like what?
What does the EU do that they do at less cost than other countries?
On another point, one thing contributing to the trade deficit is the UK paying EU countries £2 billion for our fish back...
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back.
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
But, over the slightly longer term, our trade with non-EU countries balances.
Just as a matter of interest, which products that we currently import from the EU do you think we would not longer need to import post-Brexit?
Which do you think we would?
For our overall trade deficit to be smaller, our import bill would need to be lower. We could achieve that by paying less for imports (which we would be able to with food). Or by buying less in general.
Less in general would mean pushing our savings rate up. (Or, conversely, by reducing the consumption share of GDP.)
I think your argument on savings is interesting and I am sure has merit, but that doesn't answer my (inspired by your) question. What do we 'need' to import currently from the EU that wouldn't be able to import from elsewhere or substitute ourselves?
But if we import it from somewhere else, then our overall trade deficit doesn't change! It just moves from EU to RoW.
If something costs £100 on a free global market but is presently subject to an 8% tariff so is bought for £106 from an EU nation then leaving could see a £6 saving if we drop the tariffs.
But if the £ falls 20% against the currency you are purchasing in then it will cost you more .
If the £ falls 20% then the £100 thing after conversion roses to £125 after conversion.
So before (with the tariff) it's £106 After (without the tarrif but with currency devaluation) it's £125.
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back.
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
But, over the slightly longer term, our trade with non-EU countries balances.
Just as a matter of interest, which products that we currently import from the EU do you think we would not longer need to import post-Brexit?
Which do you think we would?
For our overall trade deficit to be smaller, our import bill would need to be lower. We could achieve that by paying less for imports (which we would be able to with food). Or by buying less in general.
Less in general would mean pushing our savings rate up. (Or, conversely, by reducing the consumption share of GDP.)
I think your argument on savings is interesting and I am sure has merit, but that doesn't answer my (inspired by your) question. What do we 'need' to import currently from the EU that wouldn't be able to import from elsewhere or substitute ourselves?
But if we import it from somewhere else, then our overall trade deficit doesn't change! It just moves from EU to RoW.
If something costs £100 on a free global market but is presently subject to an 8% tariff so is bought for £106 from an EU nation then leaving could see a £6 saving if we drop the tariffs.
But if the £ falls 20% against the currency you are purchasing in then it will cost you more .
In the last two the years the pound has flucuated between S1.70 and below S1.40, that is over 20% and things have carried on quite normally as far as I can see
Breaking: State of Emergency declared in Orlando, maybe all Florida?
Horrendous news if 50 dead 50 injured.
Cynical - better get on Trump @ 4 then - A good day to make a move in the betting markets.
This ain't good - however it might have an effect on the UK referendum as well - people will look at the incident and not dissect the cause.
The shooter may be a Muslim but the victims were largely homosexuals, not exactly Trump's demographic
I suspect that simple demographic arithmetic will not be a good guide to this election. Trump is a master at reframing an issue and you may find that it's some of the least likely groups who will be the ones to switch to him.
Trump is not going to win the gay vote, he opposes gay marriage for starters
If you are targeted for murder because of your sexuality you might be more concerned to have a President who will strive to keep you safe.
Not saying that Trump necessarily is that man. But events sometimes change peoples' priorities.
There is no evidence he will keep you safe, his travel ban on Muslims would not have stopped this shooting, the shooter was a US citizen
As has been mentioned - it would have stopped his parents.
No it would not as it would not have been retrospective, short of interning every Muslim in the US, clearly against the constitution, Trump's policy would not have stopped this shooter
They mean if we went back in time and implemented it. Still, stupid idea now, stupid idea then. Proper gun control would be a better approach, but no one wants to touch that with a barge pole.
If a few of those Gay people had had guns then maybe more of them would have lived.
That's right. The nightclub probably had a no guns rule, which prevents self-defence. Shootings tend to occur in "no gun safe zones" like colleges and cinemas because in those areas only the villains are armed. Gun 'control' is a large part of the problem, not the solution.
So the more gun 'control' in a country, the more killings?
Yes, because only law-abiding citizens obey the controls.
Golly, the UK must be a paradise of libertarian gun totingness compared to the US in that case.
A very good question and aside from brands which could, quite easily, be substituted by home produced products or manafactures from elsewhere I am struggling. There must be more but there are only two things I can think of Port and Brandy. Neither of which I would class as strategic necessities but I cannot think of a replacement product that is produced outside of the EU.
I would consider Port and Brandy, and even more Rioja, as strategic necessities.
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back. 0
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
I wonder if the amount of shootings in the USA is in any way related to mental health care being unavailable to all except a few wealthy people with luxury insurance policies in many states combined with easy access to weaponry.
Switzerland and Canada have liberal gun laws but they also have comprehensive healthcare systems for their citizens
Inflation is currently a non-issue and isn't expected to be one for some time. But that is not to say we should vote to make it more of an issue than it is today.
Has anyone estimated the extra costs to the country of policing these systems of tariffs with the wider world now that we can't outsource the job to the EU?
Also what are the VAT implications for buying and selling goods to the EU in future?
Considering we are well below our inflation target at the moment a little bit of inflation would not be the end of the world.
As with @BenedictWhite, yours is the "no more boom or bust" mentality speaking.
Inflation is corrosive and because we currently don't suffer it (although we are surely close to the point where eg. the oil price will show YoY increases), there is no cause for complacency.
Inflation is currently a non-issue and isn't expected to be one for some time. But that is not to say we should vote to make it more of an issue than it is today.
It's not a non issue it is dangerously low. The Bank of England is actively trying to stoke a small amount of inflation. If a cost of a transition was a small amount of inflation then that would actually be presently a blessing not a curse. Which normally isn't the case so that makes bow the perfect time to take advantage of the opportunity.
Considering we are well below our inflation target at the moment a little bit of inflation would not be the end of the world.
Evening all. Most boomers have done incredibly well out of inflation. Businesses aside, inflation can be good for the young, and bad for the elderly.
I've found the discussions on trade and whatnot very interesting, so thanks to all who have contributed. I'll fall back on my view that we do not know what will happen over the next couple of years, it's in the lap of the Gods.
How people decide to vote is ultimately going to depend on their personal risk appetite.
Has anyone estimated the extra costs to the country of policing these systems of tariffs with the wider world now that we can't outsource the job to the EU?
Also what are the VAT implications for buying and selling goods to the EU in future?
I wonder if the amount of shootings in the USA is in any way related to mental health care being unavailable to all except a few wealthy people with luxury insurance policies in many states combined with easy access to weaponry.
Switzerland and Canada have liberal gun laws but they also have comprehensive healthcare systems for their citizens
It's entirely related to that.
They have far fewer knife attacks by crazies companies to the UK.
I wonder if the amount of shootings in the USA is in any way related to mental health care being unavailable to all except a few wealthy people with luxury insurance policies in many states combined with easy access to weaponry.
Switzerland and Canada have liberal gun laws but they also have comprehensive healthcare systems for their citizens
Plus many parts of America are a concrete jungle with insane levels of inequality and seething racial tensions.
Hardly conducive to good mental health at the best of times...
Question does the net contribution figure we talk about include tariffs the EU places and keeps on our imports?
No. Our net tariffs to the EU if we were on WTO rules would be £4.6 billion.
We would levy approximately £8.9 billion on them.
Thats another £82 million a week net on top of the £350 million we save on fees.Also the government dosent pay the tariffs to the EU buyers do so the government takes the full £171 million a week.
So £350 million a week was wrong - its over £500 million a week
Considering we are well below our inflation target at the moment a little bit of inflation would not be the end of the world.
But a lot of inflation will kill us stone dead.
The oil shock in the 70's triggered large inflation (~10-20%pa) that took 15-20 years to conquer, from Healey's budgets, then Howe's 1980 (81?) budget, eventually cumulating in the ERM entry. When inflation enters the system it takes a heck of a long time to stamp out, and let's not forget that interest rates ranged from 5-15% over those twenty years.
We currently have low inflation, low unemployment, low interest rates, and high immigration. Don't make the mistake of thinking you can alter the immgration and not affect the others.
Inflation is currently a non-issue and isn't expected to be one for some time. But that is not to say we should vote to make it more of an issue than it is today.
Ah. So it is currently dangerously low which is why Mark Carney has to write to George Osborne once a month to say what he is doing about it, but because that is a massive flaw in your argument you would like to side step it.
I wonder if the amount of shootings in the USA is in any way related to mental health care being unavailable to all except a few wealthy people with luxury insurance policies in many states combined with easy access to weaponry.
Switzerland and Canada have liberal gun laws but they also have comprehensive healthcare systems for their citizens
Plus many parts of American are a concrete jungle with insane levels of inequality and seething racial tensions.
Hardly conducive to good mental health at the best of times...
My walk to work often makes me feel lucky/guilty in having a roof over my head. Very depressing, especially for someone who grew up in the shires.
Has anyone estimated the extra costs to the country of policing these systems of tariffs with the wider world now that we can't outsource the job to the EU?
Also what are the VAT implications for buying and selling goods to the EU in future?
The EU lets us keep 25% of the tariffs on imported goods as an administration fee.
We seem to trade more successfully with those nations with whom we do not share a Single Market than with those with whom we do. Our trade with non-EU nations is broadly in balance, whereas with EU nations, we have a massive deficit. It's therefore unclear to me what the benefits of the Single Market are to this country, or what there is to fear if we don't form part of it after leaving the EU.
Leave the EU, and reduce the Trade Deficit.
Our trade deficit is the consequence of having one of the lowest savings rates in the world, not our membership of the EU.
In 2015 we had an annual £100bn trade deficit with the EU, a surplus of about £10bn with the rest of the world, and you're saying that a significant reduction in the UK's volume of trade with the EU would not reduce the UK's trade deficit?
Besides that, the existence of that £100bn trade deficit means that German firms will be petrified, because the opportunities lost to export to the UK will be far more than the opportunities gained by German firms as UK exports to Germany are scaled back.
So Schauble's threats are utterly empty. But nonetheless it might be in the UK's interests to insist that he follows through on them.
But, over the slightly longer term, our trade with non-EU countries balances.
Just as a matter of interest, which products that we currently import from the EU do you think we would not longer need to import post-Brexit?
Which do you think we would?
For our overall trade deficit to be smaller, our import bill would need to be lower. We could achieve that by paying less for imports (which we would be able to with food). Or by buying less in general.
Less in general would mean pushing our savings rate up. (Or, conversely, by reducing the consumption share of GDP.)
I think your argument on savings is interesting and I am sure has merit, but that doesn't answer my (inspired by your) question. What do we 'need' to import currently from the EU that wouldn't be able to import from elsewhere or substitute ourselves?
But if we import it from somewhere else, then our overall trade deficit doesn't change! It just moves from EU to RoW.
If something costs £100 on a free global market but is presently subject to an 8% tariff so is bought for £106 from an EU nation then leaving could see a £6 saving if we drop the tariffs.
But if the £ falls 20% against the currency you are purchasing in then it will cost you more .
Which will even further help our current account deficit as we will be buying fewer products which are cheaper while exporting more and having more tourism as that is the flip side of devaluation.
The J curve will make things much worse before it gets better especially now that we have so little manufacturing industry left
A very good question and aside from brands which could, quite easily, be substituted by home produced products or manafactures from elsewhere I am struggling. There must be more but there are only two things I can think of Port and Brandy. Neither of which I would class as strategic necessities but I cannot think of a replacement product that is produced outside of the EU.
I would consider Port and Brandy, and even more Rioja, as strategic necessities.
Point taken Mr. F., but is not Rioja an example of a brand that could be substituted rather than a product per se? It has been a good few years since I have drunk a red table wine but if memory serves there are some very nice ones coming out of the New World.
Port, whether red or white, is a unique type of drink which is only produced in Portugal. Brandy on the other hand is a spirit and whilst countries all over the world produce spirits of different sorts I know of only three that produce a brandy - France, Spain and Greece.
Question does the net contribution figure we talk about include tariffs the EU places and keeps on our imports?
No. Our net tariffs to the EU if we were on WTO rules would be £4.6 billion.
We would levy approximately £8.9 billion on them.
Thats another £82 million a week net on top of the £350 million we save on fees.Also the government dosent pay the tariffs to the EU buyers do so the government takes the full £171 million a week.
So £350 million a week was wrong - its over £500 million a week
Starting to look like a no brainer
Do you really believe the UK would benefit from imposing tariffs on EU imports?
Inflation is currently a non-issue and isn't expected to be one for some time. But that is not to say we should vote to make it more of an issue than it is today.
Ah. So it is currently dangerously low which is why Mark Carney has to write to George Osborne once a month to say what he is doing about it, but because that is a massive flaw in your argument you would like to side step it.
Got it, thanks. That's all cleared up.
The fact that the Bank of England legislation requires the Governor to explain why inflation is falling outside of a narrow band around a predetermined "target" does not mean that it is "dangerously low", especially as the current rate is likely to rise as fuel rises come back into the figures. Many people would say that real inflation is ridiculously high, if you factor in housing costs...
" very thin silver lining to the disastrous postal ballot field reports is Scotland: while the position in is bad, it is not the total meltdown suggested by the polls.
The opinion polls deal with Scotland as a whole where the huge reserves of SNP support in places like Glasgow deliver blow-out figures that suggest almost every Labour MP will lose their seat. However on a constituency basis, the distribution of support is much more even and Labour is competitive in seats that the polls suggest are lost.
According to the postal ballot reports, over half of Labour’s seats are genuinely winnable."
The Labour uncut prediction of postal ballots was right in England but not Scotland. So talk of remain pissing themselves because of how the stacks are piling up should be taken with a big pinch of salt. Besides older people were always expectd to be hugley for leave.
Although having said all this the Labour In camp seem to be in bit of a panic, and can belive some Labour towns voting 70% for Brexit.
Orlando: The news is heartbreakin, and we Muslims are not doing enough to takle extremism. Things are only going to get worse unfortantly. Sad times, Trup POTUS looks more and more likely. I see no hope
Inflation is currently a non-issue and isn't expected to be one for some time. But that is not to say we should vote to make it more of an issue than it is today.
Ah. So it is currently dangerously low which is why Mark Carney has to write to George Osborne once a month to say what he is doing about it, but because that is a massive flaw in your argument you would like to side step it.
Got it, thanks. That's all cleared up.
And thank god you are not the Governor of the Bank of England if you think you can manage inflation in such precise terms.
Considering we are well below our inflation target at the moment a little bit of inflation would not be the end of the world.
But a lot of inflation will kill us stone dead.
The oil shock in the 70's triggered large inflation (~10-20%pa) that took 15-20 years to conquer, from Healey's budgets, then Howe's 1980 (81?) budget, eventually cumulating in the ERM entry. When inflation enters the system it takes a heck of a long time to stamp out, and let's not forget that interest rates ranged from 5-15% over those twenty years.
We currently have low inflation, low unemployment, low interest rates, and high immigration. Don't make the mistake of thinking you can alter the immgration and not affect the others.
The memory of inflation in the 70's must be similar to, although of course only to a very limited degree, to that of the Germans who lived through theirs in the days of the Weimar Republic. For those who don't recall it, it was horrendous. The stock market crash in the early 70's wiped out a lot of savings, too.
In the last two the years the pound has flucuated between S1.70 and below S1.40, that is over 20% and things have carried on quite normally as far as I can see
Over the past two years house prices have increased by approx 20%.
Comments
1. The EU would want free trade with the UK.
2. The UK would want free trade with the EU.
It would be disastrous for both us and them, given the integrated nature of supply chains, for there to be any other outcome.
And, the only way of achieving a Single Market in services would be through massive (and I believe unacceptable) reductions in sovereignty, such a creating a harmonised legal system throughout the EU.
There are several who have too much in the game to allow a protracted problem.
School shootings don't happen by a criminally organised gang using hard to import weaponry. They occur because a hormonal teenager snaps and grabs the family weaponry that is in the home. When a hormonal teenager snaps here they don't have a gun to grab so do something much less horrific.
When did the last school shootings occur in the UK by a student who had imported a criminal arsenal of weapons?
What do Europe have that no one else does?
So the FBI are imagining it?
Realistically, Obama won't go big on the ISIS link, it's too big a gift for Trump. A very sensitive time at the moment, so it will be swept up in a general "terrorism" problem.
This is the worst shooting in recent history in the US, but there have been far worse events in countries around the world with strict gun control. It's just lefties jump on everything that happens in the US to distort the truth.
So instead of an iPad for Xmas, you get an Amstrad Ofucno.
Oh, goody
Hardly the sunlit uplands of a thriving economy, is it?
I remember at school you could predict thunderstorms by the number of fights breaking out in the playground at lunchtime
Ireland and Germany look especially probable.
One of the reasons we should leave the EU is because we need to face up to our problems, and take responsibility.
You mentioned another poster was seriously worrying you. For all the rational responses you are giving to anti-EU posters, you are seriously worrying me.
It seems that your objection to the EU (same as @Alanbrooke) is that it is allowing the feckless, overspending, undermanufacturing UK to stay as is.
If ever there was a case of attacking the symptom not the cause...
What does the EU do that they do at less cost than other countries?
On another point, one thing contributing to the trade deficit is the UK paying EU countries £2 billion for our fish back...
So before (with the tariff) it's £106
After (without the tarrif but with currency devaluation) it's £125.
Yikes!
and importing inflation is a price worth paying?
I am asking what do they supply that can't be obtained anywhere else.
What makes them essential?
Does nowhere else in the world (or UK) produce cars, make wine, breed livestock etc ?
Rubio: "Islamic terrorists need to know they will not win..."
Clinton: "this was an act of terror"
We would levy approximately £8.9 billion on them.
Is inflation currently dangerously low or high?
But. the example of Neil Kinnock should give them hope that people can change.
It is a touching story.
Neil was once a nasty Eurosceptic. He opposed British entry and voted to leave in the 1975 referendum.
But, fortunately, he saw the light.
And of course he has, by personal example, shown us all how great the benefits of the European Union can be.
Switzerland and Canada have liberal gun laws but they also have comprehensive healthcare systems for their citizens
Also what are the VAT implications for buying and selling goods to the EU in future?
Inflation is corrosive and because we currently don't suffer it (although we are surely close to the point where eg. the oil price will show YoY increases), there is no cause for complacency.
I've found the discussions on trade and whatnot very interesting, so thanks to all who have contributed. I'll fall back on my view that we do not know what will happen over the next couple of years, it's in the lap of the Gods.
How people decide to vote is ultimately going to depend on their personal risk appetite.
They have far fewer knife attacks by crazies companies to the UK.
Gun control = harm reduction, not cure
Hardly conducive to good mental health at the best of times...
So £350 million a week was wrong - its over £500 million a week
Starting to look like a no brainer
The oil shock in the 70's triggered large inflation (~10-20%pa) that took 15-20 years to conquer, from Healey's budgets, then Howe's 1980 (81?) budget, eventually cumulating in the ERM entry. When inflation enters the system it takes a heck of a long time to stamp out, and let's not forget that interest rates ranged from 5-15% over those twenty years.
We currently have low inflation, low unemployment, low interest rates, and high immigration. Don't make the mistake of thinking you can alter the immgration and not affect the others.
Got it, thanks. That's all cleared up.
Port, whether red or white, is a unique type of drink which is only produced in Portugal. Brandy on the other hand is a spirit and whilst countries all over the world produce spirits of different sorts I know of only three that produce a brandy - France, Spain and Greece.
The opinion polls deal with Scotland as a whole where the huge reserves of SNP support in places like Glasgow deliver blow-out figures that suggest almost every Labour MP will lose their seat. However on a constituency basis, the distribution of support is much more even and Labour is competitive in seats that the polls suggest are lost.
According to the postal ballot reports, over half of Labour’s seats are genuinely winnable."
The Labour uncut prediction of postal ballots was right in England but not Scotland. So talk of remain pissing themselves because of how the stacks are piling up should be taken with a big pinch of salt. Besides older people were always expectd to be hugley for leave.
Although having said all this the Labour In camp seem to be in bit of a panic, and can belive some Labour towns voting 70% for Brexit.
Orlando: The news is heartbreakin, and we Muslims are not doing enough to takle extremism. Things are only going to get worse unfortantly. Sad times, Trup POTUS looks more and more likely.
I see no hope
A Midlands made Jaguar would become cheaper than an Audi/BMW, if my recall is correct - both here and in Germany.
"Normal" is not the same as "good"