You are trying to spin yesterday's crushing defeat as a glorious victory
Brexit looks as dumb today as it did yesterday, and will continue to do so
Remoaners are always speciously pointing to the perceived lack of 'Brexit benefits' as if Brexit was meant to be an instant pay cheque, not a freedom that requires actual use to be enjoyed.
Well, by happy coincidence, here you go. Just by being outside the EU, tariffs on our exports to the US are halved vs. those being levied on those from the bloc. And it's happened regardless of how shit the British Government is. You're welcome.
I would be interested to know what you do or did for a living? Did you actually export? Actually have real experience of the barriers Brexit caused. To anyone familiar with preparing carnets should be able to tell you.
I can't see how this point is remotely connected with the point I just made.
Really? Just trying to find out if you have any experience of what you say on here. I have. So do you have any real knowledge of exporting to the EU pre and post Brexit? Have you ever filled in a carnet for instance and sat there at customs having a conversation with a French customs officer.
Maybe practical experience of the pre and post Brexit issues might change your views.
So what do you do?
I don't consider that to be any of your business.
Especially given that my point above has shit all to do with post-Brexit trade frictions with the EU, which I have never denied or belittled.
As an aside, a personal insight into the frustrations of exporting to the EU post-Brexit would not remotely change my views on the wider subject, for many reasons.
Hmm, it isn't, but you pontificate on stuff and we have no idea of your expertise or experience and just about everyone else here has given their background on stuff without doxing themselves.
And to say personal insight into a subject would not change your views on something is mind boggling. I don't know about you, but if I need an operation I go to a surgeon, if I want a bridge built I go to a civil engineer, etc. I don't go to some person with no experience who just gives his/her opinion with no actual experience and thinks actual knowledge might not change his/her mind on stuff.
Trade friction with the EU increasing is a single aspect of the post-Brexit settlement. It would be bizarre if I said that I would change my mind on Brexit because of this single aspect, given that the EU/No EU debate is a vast one, with fiscal, economical, legal, constitutional, democratic, environmental, immigration (al?) and many other facets.
You are trying to spin yesterday's crushing defeat as a glorious victory
Brexit looks as dumb today as it did yesterday, and will continue to do so
I do not need to spin something that is obvious
Brexit has happened and we need to take the opportunities now on offer across the globe
You will always lament Brexit but the UK is not about to rejoin the EU anytime soon
What Brexit opportunities?
Let's say Brexit has cost us £5 ( if you think that number too high, pick any number greater than £1). Trump has charged us a £1 tariff giving a total of Brexit plus Trump of £6. If we remained in the EU that tariff would be doubled to £2 giving us £7. But we didn't Brexit so we can remove the £5 cost of Brexit. So without Brexit our tariff cost is £2. With Brexit our Brexit plus tariff cost is £6.
So long as the cost of Brexit ( in my exercise) is greater than £1, we have still lost out by Brexiting.
The problem for many is the fact they didn't accept the referendum vote and the political class decided to have a bun fight over the issue rather than getting together and landing on a sensible solution
I voted remain but accepted the verdict and whilst it has faults it still is the way forward, especially in this new trading environment, and the politicians need to take the opportunity for a new world order to everyone's benefit excluding the US of course
So do I accept the vote, and I also accept the EU won't want us back anytime soon with King Nigel waiting in the wings. All that said and done I wouldn't take that extra step you have taken and sell Brexit as a win for Britain.
In the longer term it may well have proved an excellent decision
In the long term being dead might prove to be an excellent decision ...
This is a post about the fact that large-scale decisions that benefit the national interest often look bad according to conventional metrics and will certainly be decried as bad by the people who have been most successful under the current system!
That is likely to be as true in China as in the US, or anywhere.
After all, if they made things look good under the current metrics, we'd already be doing them quite uncontroversially! So anything non-obvious that needs to be done which isn't already being done is probably going to look really bad by those metrics.
I use China to illustrate this because it has leaders who are willing to take such actions, whereas the US generally does not.
Now... I don't personally know if the tariffs are that thing for the US.
But I do know that if they aren't, pointing out that the stock market is tanking is not a useful way to prove it.
If anyone still gives a fuck about it, there was an excellent long article on the SMO in the NYT on Sunday.
Some interesting snippets...
The UK has a lot of pull in Kiev because of the amount of troops (and others) they have inside Ukraine. In contrast to the US who go no further east than Wiesbaden. Which was news to me. SKS will be in the shit if any get captured.
Zaluzhniy was a fucking nightmare to deal with and he wouldn't speak to Gen. Miley. When Miley wanted to talk to him he had to call the CO of the California National Guard who spoke to some Ukrainian oligarch in LA with absolutely no links to organised crime. This guy would speak to the Ukranian Defence Minister who would then make Zaluzhniy phone Miley.
Zelenskiy, Zaluzhniy and Syrsky completed buggered the cucksteroffensive through infighting and micro-management against the advice of Gen. Donahue.
The combination of CIA intel + HIMARS was devastating and they rocked the Russians back to almost the point of defeat several times but the Ukrainian generals wouldn't press an advantage when they had it to the fury and frustration of the much more aggressive Americans.
Good article. The type of in-depth reportage you would never see in a British newspaper in a million years.
Obviously a certain amount of US spin in this article, but it rings true.
I imagine the failure of the counter-offensive made the Ukrainians very reluctant to go on the offensive against the Russian lines again, even though it’s not possible for the Russians to mine the entire front with the density they mined against the counter-offensive.
(It was a total command failure to advertise the location of the counter-offensive so far in advance & so obviously.)
This in the Telegraph was highly recommended on Ukraine the Latest. If we read it we don't need to imagine (I hope).
Described as being a very good account of how things have happened over the war for people who have not followed detail daily.
I have not looked yet, other than listen to the conversation on the podcast, as I was writing up a submission about Public Space Protection Orders and the problems they cause for disabled people yesterday, and why the process to create one is generally shit.
The executive powers of the Presidency give them sole responsibility over setting tariffs or starting wars. I don't think the Founding Fathers could quite predict global trade chains- so the tariff powers was probably an oversight.
Considering Trump's sociopathic narcissism and his need to be at the centre of every and each world news cycle every fucking day, I think his pressing the tariff issue was the least worst option.
Honestly, every time I see Trump I think to myself "seriously is this the guy you voted for?" Kamala was useless and Biden was virtually in a vegetative state, but even so, Trump? Really....
PB continues with its brilliant ability to tie whatever is going on in the world to a referendum held nearly nine years ago.
Well.. it's affected our lives ever since...
Onthread.. why would anyone expect Govts to handle anything well. Post 1945 everything pretty much has been one fuck up after another. All parties are guilty of incompetence.
Let's look at the evidence
Competent Prime Minister's None Competent Chancellor of the Exchequer Only One. KEN Clarke
Kenclarke (its one word btw) also deserves another plaudit. The last Chancellor to rock up to the dispatch box with a drink to fortify him.
You are trying to spin yesterday's crushing defeat as a glorious victory
Brexit looks as dumb today as it did yesterday, and will continue to do so
I do not need to spin something that is obvious
Brexit has happened and we need to take the opportunities now on offer across the globe
You will always lament Brexit but the UK is not about to rejoin the EU anytime soon
What Brexit opportunities?
Let's say Brexit has cost us £5 ( if you think that number too high, pick any number greater than £1). Trump has charged us a £1 tariff giving a total of Brexit plus Trump of £6. If we remained in the EU that tariff would be doubled to £2 giving us £7. But we didn't Brexit so we can remove the £5 cost of Brexit. So without Brexit our tariff cost is £2. With Brexit our Brexit plus tariff cost is £6.
So long as the cost of Brexit ( in my exercise) is greater than £1, we have still lost out by Brexiting.
The problem for many is the fact they didn't accept the referendum vote and the political class decided to have a bun fight over the issue rather than getting together and landing on a sensible solution
I voted remain but accepted the verdict and whilst it has faults it still is the way forward, especially in this new trading environment, and the politicians need to take the opportunity for a new world order to everyone's benefit excluding the US of course
So do I accept the vote, and I also accept the EU won't want us back anytime soon with King Nigel waiting in the wings. All that said and done I wouldn't take that extra step you have taken and sell Brexit as a win for Britain.
In the longer term it may well have proved an excellent decision
In the long term being dead might prove to be an excellent decision ...
Accelerates one's ascension to heaven*, I guess.
Talking of which, my better half (believer) was teasing me (non-believer) about my going to hell while she goes to heaven. My argument was that it would be a punishment for her to go to heaven and be deprived of my company, so I'd have to get a special dispensation to go to heaven just to keep her happy. She seemed unconvinced
*outcome depends on beliefs and behaviour, not guaranteed, the Creator accepts no liability for participant believing in the incorrect or no deity
You are trying to spin yesterday's crushing defeat as a glorious victory
Brexit looks as dumb today as it did yesterday, and will continue to do so
Remoaners are always speciously pointing to the perceived lack of 'Brexit benefits' as if Brexit was meant to be an instant pay cheque, not a freedom that requires actual use to be enjoyed.
Well, by happy coincidence, here you go. Just by being outside the EU, tariffs on our exports to the US are halved vs. those being levied on those from the bloc. And it's happened regardless of how shit the British Government is. You're welcome.
I would be interested to know what you do or did for a living? Did you actually export? Actually have real experience of the barriers Brexit caused. To anyone familiar with preparing carnets should be able to tell you.
I can't see how this point is remotely connected with the point I just made.
Really? Just trying to find out if you have any experience of what you say on here. I have. So do you have any real knowledge of exporting to the EU pre and post Brexit? Have you ever filled in a carnet for instance and sat there at customs having a conversation with a French customs officer.
Maybe practical experience of the pre and post Brexit issues might change your views.
So what do you do?
I don't consider that to be any of your business.
Especially given that my point above has shit all to do with post-Brexit trade frictions with the EU, which I have never denied or belittled.
As an aside, a personal insight into the frustrations of exporting to the EU post-Brexit would not remotely change my views on the wider subject, for many reasons.
Hmm, it isn't, but you pontificate on stuff and we have no idea of your expertise or experience and just about everyone else here has given their background on stuff without doxing themselves.
And to say personal insight into a subject would not change your views on something is mind boggling. I don't know about you, but if I need an operation I go to a surgeon, if I want a bridge built I go to a civil engineer, etc. I don't go to some person with no experience who just gives his/her opinion with no actual experience and thinks actual knowledge might not change his/her mind on stuff.
The reason it wouldn't change his view is presumably because his view is based on reasons other than trade friction with the EU.
Why are people still having trouble accepting that line of reasoning?
This is a post about the fact that large-scale decisions that benefit the national interest often look bad according to conventional metrics and will certainly be decried as bad by the people who have been most successful under the current system!
That is likely to be as true in China as in the US, or anywhere.
After all, if they made things look good under the current metrics, we'd already be doing them quite uncontroversially! So anything non-obvious that needs to be done which isn't already being done is probably going to look really bad by those metrics.
I use China to illustrate this because it has leaders who are willing to take such actions, whereas the US generally does not.
Now... I don't personally know if the tariffs are that thing for the US.
But I do know that if they aren't, pointing out that the stock market is tanking is not a useful way to prove it.
Quite an obvious point. Businesses have been doing very well manufacturing trainers in Vietnamese sweatshops. Relocating a factory to the US is a costly and annoying exercise. Of course that would impact share price negatively.
I thought it would be realised in basic terms like GDP - a kind of sorpasso - but no. It has arrived in voluntary American resignation, America admitting it is not hegemonic and no longer pre-eminent and all powerful and it must retreat and defend. That day arrived yesterday, tho Trump probably believes the opposite
One of the biggest issues for the Chinese government right now must be to not be seen to gloat, but they are surely very tempted to do so.
It’s definitely possible that we get a realignment towards China. All they have to do is basically nothing: Just by being a stable, predictable partner they will look like a more reliable place to build economic ties than the US.
I certainly hope Europeans are not that naive.
The invasion of Taiwan is pending.
A European realignment towards China would be as dumb as anything Trump has done.
Piquantly I am writing this in the Afrosiyab museum in Samarkand with its famous murals from a Sogdian palace - 7th century pre Islamic Samarkand - depicting Turkish, Chinese, Persian, Tibetan, Korean (?!) ambassadors and merchants and royals riding elephants and hunting panthers and bearing silks - on the Silk Road. The iconic world trade that made Samarkand rich in the first place
There are times, Leon, when your dispatches are a welcome relief to those of us burdened with the heavy load of reading and posting here daily. Today they are especially welcome.
This is a post about the fact that large-scale decisions that benefit the national interest often look bad according to conventional metrics and will certainly be decried as bad by the people who have been most successful under the current system!
That is likely to be as true in China as in the US, or anywhere.
After all, if they made things look good under the current metrics, we'd already be doing them quite uncontroversially! So anything non-obvious that needs to be done which isn't already being done is probably going to look really bad by those metrics.
I use China to illustrate this because it has leaders who are willing to take such actions, whereas the US generally does not.
Now... I don't personally know if the tariffs are that thing for the US.
But I do know that if they aren't, pointing out that the stock market is tanking is not a useful way to prove it.
Quite an obvious point. Businesses have been doing very well manufacturing trainers in Vietnamese sweatshops. Relocating a factory to the US is a costly and annoying exercise. Of course that would impact share price negatively.
There will be winners and losers, as there always are. Others will gain. The market will adjust to the new normal if tariffs remain.
Due to the volatility in the region plenty of companies have already been looking to repatriate work.
When the Trump presidency ends in ignominy, a lot of the people now cheerleading him will deny ever having backed it.
I think he’s just copying and pasting things people have said to him about Brexit.
Hannan still seems bewitched by the ghosts of Thatcher and Reagan. These are now discredited figures on the Right. He needs to move on or will find himself horribly marginalized.
He's in the House of Lords. How do you get more marginalised than that?
This is a post about the fact that large-scale decisions that benefit the national interest often look bad according to conventional metrics and will certainly be decried as bad by the people who have been most successful under the current system!
That is likely to be as true in China as in the US, or anywhere.
After all, if they made things look good under the current metrics, we'd already be doing them quite uncontroversially! So anything non-obvious that needs to be done which isn't already being done is probably going to look really bad by those metrics.
I use China to illustrate this because it has leaders who are willing to take such actions, whereas the US generally does not.
Now... I don't personally know if the tariffs are that thing for the US.
But I do know that if they aren't, pointing out that the stock market is tanking is not a useful way to prove it.
Quite an obvious point. Businesses have been doing very well manufacturing trainers in Vietnamese sweatshops. Relocating a factory to the US is a costly and annoying exercise. Of course that would impact share price negatively.
Political stability and the rule of law are also important factors. How can anyone have any faith in what the law or the courts determine in the US given how Trump behaves.
Still quite amusing to find that Trump has imposed tariffs on the US military base on Diego Garcia.
We'll just have to ignore the US as much as we can while it has its tantrum.
If anyone still gives a fuck about it, there was an excellent long article on the SMO in the NYT on Sunday.
Some interesting snippets...
The UK has a lot of pull in Kiev because of the amount of troops (and others) they have inside Ukraine. In contrast to the US who go no further east than Wiesbaden. Which was news to me. SKS will be in the shit if any get captured.
Zaluzhniy was a fucking nightmare to deal with and he wouldn't speak to Gen. Miley. When Miley wanted to talk to him he had to call the CO of the California National Guard who spoke to some Ukrainian oligarch in LA with absolutely no links to organised crime. This guy would speak to the Ukranian Defence Minister who would then make Zaluzhniy phone Miley.
Zelenskiy, Zaluzhniy and Syrsky completed buggered the cucksteroffensive through infighting and micro-management against the advice of Gen. Donahue.
The combination of CIA intel + HIMARS was devastating and they rocked the Russians back to almost the point of defeat several times but the Ukrainian generals wouldn't press an advantage when they had it to the fury and frustration of the much more aggressive Americans.
Good article. The type of in-depth reportage you would never see in a British newspaper in a million years.
Obviously a certain amount of US spin in this article, but it rings true.
I imagine the failure of the counter-offensive made the Ukrainians very reluctant to go on the offensive against the Russian lines again, even though it’s not possible for the Russians to mine the entire front with the density they mined against the counter-offensive.
(It was a total command failure to advertise the location of the counter-offensive so far in advance & so obviously.)
This in the Telegraph was highly recommended on Ukraine the Latest. If we read it we don't need to imagine (I hope).
Described as being a very good account of how things have happened over the war for people who have not followed detail daily.
I have not looked yet, other than listen to the conversation on the podcast, as I was writing up a submission about Public Space Protection Orders and the problems they cause for disabled people yesterday, and why the process to create one is generally shit.
Sorry - typo. It's in the NYT not the Telegraph.
Though the Telegraph also does some good pieces on Ukr, you just need to judge by the Writer's name not the publication's brand.
The point being that Brexit was an economic disaster, and "only 10%" doesn't even begin to make up for it
No it wasn't Scott. Covid was an economic disaster. The Ukraine war was an economic disaster. Trumponomics might well be an economic disaster, Brexit was an invisible blip by comparison. My expectation is still that it will be a long-term positive, as I think there is a risk of the European economy going through some pretty turbulent times, but either way it is small beer compared to three other economic disasters that have happened since.
Seeing Brexit in isolation from the Trump tariffs, Covid and the Ukraine war makes no sense. Leaving the EU left us more exposed to the consequences of all three.
Hm. But I'd argue we dealt with Covid better than the EU - partly because of Brexit - and I'd argue that, partly as a result of Brexit, we were able to respond more decisively to Ukraine: had we still been a member of the EU, it would have been much more difficult to act unilaterally and any EU response would have been hindered by the anchor of Hungary (and then Slovakia). And we're surely in a better place to respond to Trumponomics outside the EU than in it?
This is a post about the fact that large-scale decisions that benefit the national interest often look bad according to conventional metrics and will certainly be decried as bad by the people who have been most successful under the current system!
That is likely to be as true in China as in the US, or anywhere.
After all, if they made things look good under the current metrics, we'd already be doing them quite uncontroversially! So anything non-obvious that needs to be done which isn't already being done is probably going to look really bad by those metrics.
I use China to illustrate this because it has leaders who are willing to take such actions, whereas the US generally does not.
Now... I don't personally know if the tariffs are that thing for the US.
But I do know that if they aren't, pointing out that the stock market is tanking is not a useful way to prove it.
Quite an obvious point. Businesses have been doing very well manufacturing trainers in Vietnamese sweatshops. Relocating a factory to the US is a costly and annoying exercise. Of course that would impact share price negatively.
There will be winners and losers, as there always are. Others will gain. The market will adjust to the new normal if tariffs remain.
It is really asking a bit much for our leaders to stay calm, not react, and allow the markets to adjust, but it would be great if they did. The eventual result, and not too far off, would be a new an substantially unaltered world with the one major exception of a USA that is greatly diminished economically and politically.
PB continues with its brilliant ability to tie whatever is going on in the world to a referendum held nearly nine years ago.
Well.. it's affected our lives ever since...
Onthread.. why would anyone expect Govts to handle anything well. Post 1945 everything pretty much has been one fuck up after another. All parties are guilty of incompetence.
Let's look at the evidence
Competent Prime Minister's None Competent Chancellor of the Exchequer Only One. KEN Clarke
Given that the life of the averge Brit has improved immeasurably since 1945, I'd say the evidence points towards you having unrealistic expectations of the capabilities of government ministers.
This is a post about the fact that large-scale decisions that benefit the national interest often look bad according to conventional metrics and will certainly be decried as bad by the people who have been most successful under the current system!
That is likely to be as true in China as in the US, or anywhere.
After all, if they made things look good under the current metrics, we'd already be doing them quite uncontroversially! So anything non-obvious that needs to be done which isn't already being done is probably going to look really bad by those metrics.
I use China to illustrate this because it has leaders who are willing to take such actions, whereas the US generally does not.
Now... I don't personally know if the tariffs are that thing for the US.
But I do know that if they aren't, pointing out that the stock market is tanking is not a useful way to prove it.
There are two big things wrong with that take.
(1) Democracy isn't a means to finding the best policies. It's a way of peacefully managing disputes between different people in a complex society. So you wouldn't necessarily expect all the obviously good things to be done, because people are not rational and in a democracy they can prevent obviously good things from happening for whatever irrational reasons they have.
(2) Sometimes a thing is dumb and damaging and causes obviously large damage in a way picked up by the normal metrics. The Emperor is naked. We shouldn't be afraid to say so. There's no method to Trump's madness. He's simply done a dumb thing.
Piquantly I am writing this in the Afrosiyab museum in Samarkand with its famous murals from a Sogdian palace - 7th century pre Islamic Samarkand - depicting Turkish, Chinese, Persian, Tibetan, Korean (?!) ambassadors and merchants and royals riding elephants and hunting panthers and bearing silks - on the Silk Road. The iconic world trade that made Samarkand rich in the first place
There are times, Leon, when your dispatches are a welcome relief to those of us burdened with the heavy load of reading and posting here daily. Today they are especially welcome.
Thank you.
Most kind
Also I just saw Ursula von der Plagiarism - behind a tinted window - the EU is here in Samarkand for a trade summit
Nike just lost nearly $10 billion in market cap in under an hour—because Trump slapped a 46% tariff on Vietnam, where Nike has over 450,000 workers and 130 factories.
The stock cratered nearly 7%, and investors hit the panic button.
That’s not “America First.” That’s tanking American companies while pretending it’s patriotism.
Starmer looks pretty stupid today. He will be seen by voters and the EU as a 'Judas' and in the US and the wider world as Trumps poodle.
We are prepared to break ranks with the EU who we do 10x as much trade with for a pointless pat on the head from Donald.
Historically the role of the quisling is one that lives in the memory for a long time. We have been asked to choose between our nearest and dearest or Trump and his clown show and we've gone for the clown show.
They say Starmer's a lucky general and they're right. If he had any sensible opposition he'd be out on his ear
You are trying to spin yesterday's crushing defeat as a glorious victory
Brexit looks as dumb today as it did yesterday, and will continue to do so
Remoaners are always speciously pointing to the perceived lack of 'Brexit benefits' as if Brexit was meant to be an instant pay cheque, not a freedom that requires actual use to be enjoyed.
Well, by happy coincidence, here you go. Just by being outside the EU, tariffs on our exports to the US are halved vs. those being levied on those from the bloc. And it's happened regardless of how shit the British Government is. You're welcome.
I would be interested to know what you do or did for a living? Did you actually export? Actually have real experience of the barriers Brexit caused. To anyone familiar with preparing carnets should be able to tell you.
I can't see how this point is remotely connected with the point I just made.
Really? Just trying to find out if you have any experience of what you say on here. I have. So do you have any real knowledge of exporting to the EU pre and post Brexit? Have you ever filled in a carnet for instance and sat there at customs having a conversation with a French customs officer.
Maybe practical experience of the pre and post Brexit issues might change your views.
So what do you do?
I don't consider that to be any of your business.
Especially given that my point above has shit all to do with post-Brexit trade frictions with the EU, which I have never denied or belittled.
As an aside, a personal insight into the frustrations of exporting to the EU post-Brexit would not remotely change my views on the wider subject, for many reasons.
Hmm, it isn't, but you pontificate on stuff and we have no idea of your expertise or experience and just about everyone else here has given their background on stuff without doxing themselves.
And to say personal insight into a subject would not change your views on something is mind boggling. I don't know about you, but if I need an operation I go to a surgeon, if I want a bridge built I go to a civil engineer, etc. I don't go to some person with no experience who just gives his/her opinion with no actual experience and thinks actual knowledge might not change his/her mind on stuff.
Trade friction with the EU increasing is a single aspect of the post-Brexit settlement. It would be bizarre if I said that I would change my mind on Brexit because of this single aspect, given that the EU/No EU debate is a vast one, with fiscal, economical, legal, constitutional, democratic, environmental, immigration (al?) and many other facets.
And for those in the real world who and understand business, the idea that the Orange man's differential tariffs between UK and EU will make up for the damage that has been done to the UK economy by the stupidity known as Brexit is quite frankly laughable.
That's not a surprise. They are working with Trump's attempt to demolish international law.
Here's President Chump's Executive Order from 6/2, which follows his playbook from abusing normal Court Staff during his prosecutions before the election, and his political attacks on the Judiciary since:
It's quite something. If you're sibling works for the ICC, you are f*cked - desires Trump:
"The United States will impose tangible and significant consequences on those responsible for the ICC’s transgressions, some of which may include the blocking of property and assets, as well as the suspension of entry into the United States of ICC officials, employees, and agents, as well as their immediate family members, as their entry into our Nation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."
Nike just lost nearly $10 billion in market cap in under an hour—because Trump slapped a 46% tariff on Vietnam, where Nike has over 450,000 workers and 130 factories.
The stock cratered nearly 7%, and investors hit the panic button.
That’s not “America First.” That’s tanking American companies while pretending it’s patriotism.
You are trying to spin yesterday's crushing defeat as a glorious victory
Brexit looks as dumb today as it did yesterday, and will continue to do so
Remoaners are always speciously pointing to the perceived lack of 'Brexit benefits' as if Brexit was meant to be an instant pay cheque, not a freedom that requires actual use to be enjoyed.
Well, by happy coincidence, here you go. Just by being outside the EU, tariffs on our exports to the US are halved vs. those being levied on those from the bloc. And it's happened regardless of how shit the British Government is. You're welcome.
I would be interested to know what you do or did for a living? Did you actually export? Actually have real experience of the barriers Brexit caused. To anyone familiar with preparing carnets should be able to tell you.
I can't see how this point is remotely connected with the point I just made.
Really? Just trying to find out if you have any experience of what you say on here. I have. So do you have any real knowledge of exporting to the EU pre and post Brexit? Have you ever filled in a carnet for instance and sat there at customs having a conversation with a French customs officer.
Maybe practical experience of the pre and post Brexit issues might change your views.
So what do you do?
I don't consider that to be any of your business.
Especially given that my point above has shit all to do with post-Brexit trade frictions with the EU, which I have never denied or belittled.
As an aside, a personal insight into the frustrations of exporting to the EU post-Brexit would not remotely change my views on the wider subject, for many reasons.
Hmm, it isn't, but you pontificate on stuff and we have no idea of your expertise or experience and just about everyone else here has given their background on stuff without doxing themselves.
And to say personal insight into a subject would not change your views on something is mind boggling. I don't know about you, but if I need an operation I go to a surgeon, if I want a bridge built I go to a civil engineer, etc. I don't go to some person with no experience who just gives his/her opinion with no actual experience and thinks actual knowledge might not change his/her mind on stuff.
Trade friction with the EU increasing is a single aspect of the post-Brexit settlement. It would be bizarre if I said that I would change my mind on Brexit because of this single aspect, given that the EU/No EU debate is a vast one, with fiscal, economical, legal, constitutional, democratic, environmental, immigration (al?) and many other facets.
What? Importing/Exporting might be a single issue, but it is by far the biggest issue with regard to being or not being a member of the EU and impacts at least four of those in your list. It is primarily what the EU is for, although I understand and appreciate others object to the expanding role of the EU into other areas.
Without an understanding of this area of the EU, one can't make an informed decision. It is like objecting to the wearing of seat belts or vaccines for freedom issues without looking at the other issues and looking at the facts in the round as to why they are a good idea.
I also struggle to understand why you can't let us know your area of expertise without doxing yourself. We know this for just about everyone else here, so we know where they are coming from e.g. Doctors, Lawyers, Scientists, etc when they say stuff.
If it helps, although this is not new to anyone here I studied Mathematics, then started in Consultancy, moved to a large American Computer manufacturer and then set up my own company 30 years ago helping large Corporations, Charities and Government bodies. I have experience of selling and buying to EU countries and also moving non-sold stuff in and out of EU countries whilst being inside and outside of the EU.
Brexit cost the UK economy 10 times as much as 'only having 10% tariffs instead of 20%' saves
The reason why our tariffs are lower is because our trade surplus ratio in goods with the US is smaller than the EU's. It's not actually based on the EU's tariffs on the US at all. (Hence why he claimed Cambodia has 97% tariffs - that's just their trade deficit).
So it's a good day at the office for our sub-optimal goods exports....
Though Brexit means our exports get counted independently and we have an economic policy based upon our economic data.
If it weren't for Brexit we'd be paying the price for German exports without getting the advantage of having those exports.
Almost as if having your own trade policies based on your own trade data is a good idea.
Nike just lost nearly $10 billion in market cap in under an hour—because Trump slapped a 46% tariff on Vietnam, where Nike has over 450,000 workers and 130 factories.
The stock cratered nearly 7%, and investors hit the panic button.
That’s not “America First.” That’s tanking American companies while pretending it’s patriotism.
Starmer looks pretty stupid today. He will be seen by voters and the EU as a 'Judas' and in the US and the wider world as Trumps poodle.
We are prepared to break ranks with the EU who we do 10x as much trade with for a pointless pat on the head from Donald.
Historically the role of the quisling is one that lives in the memory for a long time. We have been asked to choose between our nearest and dearest or Trump and his clown show and we've gone for the clown show.
They say Starmer's a lucky general and they're right. If he had any sensible opposition he'd be out on his ear
That's a very narrow view of what is going on. Starmer can't afford to pick a fight with Trump as he's one of the few leaders who seems to have some influence on Trump when it comes to Ukraine. Europe needs at least one person who can stop Trump throwing in the towel and handing Ukraine to Russia. I think Starmer is doing a pretty good job all things considered.
You are trying to spin yesterday's crushing defeat as a glorious victory
Brexit looks as dumb today as it did yesterday, and will continue to do so
I do not need to spin something that is obvious
Brexit has happened and we need to take the opportunities now on offer across the globe
You will always lament Brexit but the UK is not about to rejoin the EU anytime soon
What Brexit opportunities?
Let's say Brexit has cost us £5 ( if you think that number too high, pick any number greater than £1). Trump has charged us a £1 tariff giving a total of Brexit plus Trump of £6. If we remained in the EU that tariff would be doubled to £2 giving us £7. But we didn't Brexit so we can remove the £5 cost of Brexit. So without Brexit our tariff cost is £2. With Brexit our Brexit plus tariff cost is £6.
So long as the cost of Brexit ( in my exercise) is greater than £1, we have still lost out by Brexiting.
The problem for many is the fact they didn't accept the referendum vote and the political class decided to have a bun fight over the issue rather than getting together and landing on a sensible solution
I voted remain but accepted the verdict and whilst it has faults it still is the way forward, especially in this new trading environment, and the politicians need to take the opportunity for a new world order to everyone's benefit excluding the US of course
So do I accept the vote, and I also accept the EU won't want us back anytime soon with King Nigel waiting in the wings. All that said and done I wouldn't take that extra step you have taken and sell Brexit as a win for Britain.
In the longer term it may well have proved an excellent decision
Yes the world needs a pointless theme park with crap weather where we can tell visitors who we used to be
Starmer looks pretty stupid today. He will be seen by voters and the EU as a 'Judas' and in the US and the wider world as Trumps poodle.
We are prepared to break ranks with the EU who we do 10x as much trade with for a pointless pat on the head from Donald.
Historically the role of the quisling is one that lives in the memory for a long time. We have been asked to choose between our nearest and dearest or Trump and his clown show and we've gone for the clown show.
They say Starmer's a lucky general and they're right. If he had any sensible opposition he'd be out on his ear
You shouldn't underestimate how much trade we do with the US:
Nike just lost nearly $10 billion in market cap in under an hour—because Trump slapped a 46% tariff on Vietnam, where Nike has over 450,000 workers and 130 factories.
The stock cratered nearly 7%, and investors hit the panic button.
That’s not “America First.” That’s tanking American companies while pretending it’s patriotism.
When the Trump presidency ends in ignominy, a lot of the people now cheerleading him will deny ever having backed it.
I think he’s just copying and pasting things people have said to him about Brexit.
Hannan still seems bewitched by the ghosts of Thatcher and Reagan. These are now discredited figures on the Right. He needs to move on or will find himself horribly marginalized.
He's in the House of Lords. How do you get more marginalised than that?
It is news to me that Thatcher and Reagan are "discredited figures on the right". I am not sure that even those on the moderate/centrist centre right would describe either as such. They were both colossal figures who reshaped the world. Being disliked by unworldly Corbynites and ranty lefty students from the time who still haven't grown up hardly makes them "discredited".
The fantasy that "people are rational actors" is an article of faith way past its expiry date. In fact. It's gone putrid and is now hazardous to health. Let's bin it.
You are trying to spin yesterday's crushing defeat as a glorious victory
Brexit looks as dumb today as it did yesterday, and will continue to do so
I do not need to spin something that is obvious
Brexit has happened and we need to take the opportunities now on offer across the globe
You will always lament Brexit but the UK is not about to rejoin the EU anytime soon
What Brexit opportunities?
Let's say Brexit has cost us £5 ( if you think that number too high, pick any number greater than £1). Trump has charged us a £1 tariff giving a total of Brexit plus Trump of £6. If we remained in the EU that tariff would be doubled to £2 giving us £7. But we didn't Brexit so we can remove the £5 cost of Brexit. So without Brexit our tariff cost is £2. With Brexit our Brexit plus tariff cost is £6.
So long as the cost of Brexit ( in my exercise) is greater than £1, we have still lost out by Brexiting.
The problem for many is the fact they didn't accept the referendum vote and the political class decided to have a bun fight over the issue rather than getting together and landing on a sensible solution
I voted remain but accepted the verdict and whilst it has faults it still is the way forward, especially in this new trading environment, and the politicians need to take the opportunity for a new world order to everyone's benefit excluding the US of course
So do I accept the vote, and I also accept the EU won't want us back anytime soon with King Nigel waiting in the wings. All that said and done I wouldn't take that extra step you have taken and sell Brexit as a win for Britain.
In the longer term it may well have proved an excellent decision
Let me put this in a way the public school brexiteers will understand -
Because we’re out of the EU, Trump is only giving us 10 strokes of the cane instead of 20 but we’re still hurting from the 60 strokes we got from Brexit.
Surely it opens up opportunities for the savvy Irish
My maternal grandfather owned adjacent farms in 26C and 6C. One in Fermanagh and one in Cavan. He had 10,000 gallon diesel tanks on both farms connected by an underground pipe. Even after he'd paid his tax to you-know-who, it was still a vastly lucrative operation.
People complaining about Trump's tariffs are missing the point. We think they are stupid because they make things more expensive and he's hamfisted, but they do have a purpose. Zeihan (I know, I know) has been saying for over a decade that the US will pull up the drawbridge and retreat from its global role because it can become virtually independent from the entire world if it has Canada and Mexico. This is just formalising that by accelerating onshoring.
Piquantly I am writing this in the Afrosiyab museum in Samarkand with its famous murals from a Sogdian palace - 7th century pre Islamic Samarkand - depicting Turkish, Chinese, Persian, Tibetan, Korean (?!) ambassadors and merchants and royals riding elephants and hunting panthers and bearing silks - on the Silk Road. The iconic world trade that made Samarkand rich in the first place
There are times, Leon, when your dispatches are a welcome relief to those of us burdened with the heavy load of reading and posting here daily. Today they are especially welcome.
Thank you.
I've liked, even though I am one adding to the burden.
It is a strange set of affairs that we really welcome @leon's posts to give us some relief on the subject being discussed, as opposed to it being a leon dominated thread.
As with all things there is more pleasure when you don't overindulge.
People complaining about Trump's tariffs are missing the point. We think they are stupid because they make things more expensive and he's hamfisted, but they do have a purpose. Zeihan (I know, I know) has been saying for over a decade that the US will pull up the drawbridge and retreat from its global role because it can become virtually independent from the entire world if it has Canada and Mexico. This is just formalising that by accelerating onshoring.
The only problem with that cunning plan being Donny pissing off the Canadians, bigly
Nike just lost nearly $10 billion in market cap in under an hour—because Trump slapped a 46% tariff on Vietnam, where Nike has over 450,000 workers and 130 factories.
The stock cratered nearly 7%, and investors hit the panic button.
That’s not “America First.” That’s tanking American companies while pretending it’s patriotism.
I am not altogether sure that this is the best anti-tariff argument.
The anti-anti-tariff argument (sorry for the multiple negatives) makes the assumption Nike shoe production will now move to the USA.
It's an assumption that is mostly not supported by precedent. More likely the shoes will still be imported in smaller numbers at a higher cost to consumers with little to no extra production in the US.
You are trying to spin yesterday's crushing defeat as a glorious victory
Brexit looks as dumb today as it did yesterday, and will continue to do so
Remoaners are always speciously pointing to the perceived lack of 'Brexit benefits' as if Brexit was meant to be an instant pay cheque, not a freedom that requires actual use to be enjoyed.
Well, by happy coincidence, here you go. Just by being outside the EU, tariffs on our exports to the US are halved vs. those being levied on those from the bloc. And it's happened regardless of how shit the British Government is. You're welcome.
I would be interested to know what you do or did for a living? Did you actually export? Actually have real experience of the barriers Brexit caused. To anyone familiar with preparing carnets should be able to tell you.
I can't see how this point is remotely connected with the point I just made.
Really? Just trying to find out if you have any experience of what you say on here. I have. So do you have any real knowledge of exporting to the EU pre and post Brexit? Have you ever filled in a carnet for instance and sat there at customs having a conversation with a French customs officer.
Maybe practical experience of the pre and post Brexit issues might change your views.
So what do you do?
I don't consider that to be any of your business.
Especially given that my point above has shit all to do with post-Brexit trade frictions with the EU, which I have never denied or belittled.
As an aside, a personal insight into the frustrations of exporting to the EU post-Brexit would not remotely change my views on the wider subject, for many reasons.
Hmm, it isn't, but you pontificate on stuff and we have no idea of your expertise or experience and just about everyone else here has given their background on stuff without doxing themselves.
And to say personal insight into a subject would not change your views on something is mind boggling. I don't know about you, but if I need an operation I go to a surgeon, if I want a bridge built I go to a civil engineer, etc. I don't go to some person with no experience who just gives his/her opinion with no actual experience and thinks actual knowledge might not change his/her mind on stuff.
Trade friction with the EU increasing is a single aspect of the post-Brexit settlement. It would be bizarre if I said that I would change my mind on Brexit because of this single aspect, given that the EU/No EU debate is a vast one, with fiscal, economical, legal, constitutional, democratic, environmental, immigration (al?) and many other facets.
What? Importing/Exporting might be a single issue, but it is by far the biggest issue with regard to being or not being a member of the EU and impacts at least four of those in your list. It is primarily what the EU is for, although I understand and appreciate others object to the expanding role of the EU into other areas.
Without an understanding of this area of the EU, one can't make an informed decision. It is like objecting to the wearing of seat belts or vaccines for freedom issues without looking at the other issues and looking at the facts in the round as to why they are a good idea.
I also struggle to understand why you can't let us know your area of expertise without doxing yourself. We know this for just about everyone else here, so we know where they are coming from e.g. Doctors, Lawyers, Scientists, etc when they say stuff.
If it helps, although this is not new to anyone here I studied Mathematics, then started in Consultancy, moved to a large American Computer manufacturer and then set up my own company 30 years ago helping large Corporations, Charities and Government bodies. I have experience of selling and buying to EU countries and also moving non-sold stuff in and out of EU countries whilst being inside and outside of the EU.
Look, it is hard to avoid doxing oneself when one's professional history is former leader of the Conservative party and current Trump groupie
Starmer looks pretty stupid today. He will be seen by voters and the EU as a 'Judas' and in the US and the wider world as Trumps poodle.
We are prepared to break ranks with the EU who we do 10x as much trade with for a pointless pat on the head from Donald.
Historically the role of the quisling is one that lives in the memory for a long time. We have been asked to choose between our nearest and dearest or Trump and his clown show and we've gone for the clown show.
They say Starmer's a lucky general and they're right. If he had any sensible opposition he'd be out on his ear
You shouldn't underestimate how much trade we do with the US:
Nike just lost nearly $10 billion in market cap in under an hour—because Trump slapped a 46% tariff on Vietnam, where Nike has over 450,000 workers and 130 factories.
The stock cratered nearly 7%, and investors hit the panic button.
That’s not “America First.” That’s tanking American companies while pretending it’s patriotism.
Starmer looks pretty stupid today. He will be seen by voters and the EU as a 'Judas' and in the US and the wider world as Trumps poodle.
We are prepared to break ranks with the EU who we do 10x as much trade with for a pointless pat on the head from Donald.
Historically the role of the quisling is one that lives in the memory for a long time. We have been asked to choose between our nearest and dearest or Trump and his clown show and we've gone for the clown show.
They say Starmer's a lucky general and they're right. If he had any sensible opposition he'd be out on his ear
You shouldn't underestimate how much trade we do with the US:
What if Trump's tariffs work? From a US POV I mean. He'll be given a third term and a landslide.
They won't. Murica voted Trump to do many things - a key one was make things cheaper.
This makes everything more expensive.
I touched on Vietnam. Mega tariff on Nikes makes the Nikes more expensive. Or Nike could invest (as MAGA won't let the government do it) to build factories and train workers and create supply chains to make Nikes in Murica. Which makes Nikes more expensive.
Any way you cut this, Americans will be paying more. In many cases, a lot more.
This only works for him if the propaganda ministry persuades Muricans that paying more is patriotic because The Whole World hates them. Or the simpler option which is simply pass an EO removing the need for further meaningful elections in this time of National Emergency.
Here is where Trump might accidentally have a point, even if it is not the point he thinks he has.
In traditional Adam Smith capitalism, everyone benefits from free trade. Vietnam gets investment and jobs. America gets cheap trainers.
But that is not what happens because Nike captures most of the profit. Americans still have to pay hundreds of dollars and Vietnamese workers are paid peanuts. Neither group gets the benefit promised by their economics textbooks.
Nike just lost nearly $10 billion in market cap in under an hour—because Trump slapped a 46% tariff on Vietnam, where Nike has over 450,000 workers and 130 factories.
The stock cratered nearly 7%, and investors hit the panic button.
That’s not “America First.” That’s tanking American companies while pretending it’s patriotism.
I am not altogether sure that this is the best anti-tariff argument.
The anti-anti-tariff argument (sorry for the multiple negatives) makes the assumption Nike shoe production will now move to the USA.
It's an assumption that is mostly not supported by precedent. More likely the shoes will still be imported in smaller numbers at a higher cost to consumers with little to no extra production in the US.
As many here have pointed out, Nike and their like are not suddenly going to open up factories in the US as long as the country is run by an unpredictable megolamanic.
Brexit cost the UK economy 10 times as much as 'only having 10% tariffs instead of 20%' saves
The reason why our tariffs are lower is because our trade surplus ratio in goods with the US is smaller than the EU's. It's not actually based on the EU's tariffs on the US at all. (Hence why he claimed Cambodia has 97% tariffs - that's just their trade deficit).
So it's a good day at the office for our sub-optimal goods exports....
Though Brexit means our exports get counted independently and we have an economic policy based upon our economic data.
If it weren't for Brexit we'd be paying the price for German exports without getting the advantage of having those exports.
Almost as if having your own trade policies based on your own trade data is a good idea.
You're right, but it's a rather hollow victory. "We're better off outside the EU because our exports are shite".
Germany is a poor example, btw, because their net exports are much better than the EU as a whole. They've been protected by the EU average. By the same token, those parts of the UK with significant exports to the US are relatively better off (except for cars). Chemicals, engines, turbines, electric motors, chemicals, pharmaceuticals etc.
People complaining about Trump's tariffs are missing the point. We think they are stupid because they make things more expensive and he's hamfisted, but they do have a purpose. Zeihan (I know, I know) has been saying for over a decade that the US will pull up the drawbridge and retreat from its global role because it can become virtually independent from the entire world if it has Canada and Mexico. This is just formalising that by accelerating onshoring.
It still involves weakening the USA's power and prestige, for reasons that seem unconvincing.
Starmer looks pretty stupid today. He will be seen by voters and the EU as a 'Judas' and in the US and the wider world as Trumps poodle.
We are prepared to break ranks with the EU who we do 10x as much trade with for a pointless pat on the head from Donald.
Historically the role of the quisling is one that lives in the memory for a long time. We have been asked to choose between our nearest and dearest or Trump and his clown show and we've gone for the clown show.
They say Starmer's a lucky general and they're right. If he had any sensible opposition he'd be out on his ear
That's a very narrow view of what is going on. Starmer can't afford to pick a fight with Trump as he's one of the few leaders who seems to have some influence on Trump when it comes to Ukraine. Europe needs at least one person who can stop Trump throwing in the towel and handing Ukraine to Russia. I think Starmer is doing a pretty good job all things considered.
Honestly, what good would Starmer's ranting and raving ineffectually against Trump do anybody?
Nike just lost nearly $10 billion in market cap in under an hour—because Trump slapped a 46% tariff on Vietnam, where Nike has over 450,000 workers and 130 factories.
The stock cratered nearly 7%, and investors hit the panic button.
That’s not “America First.” That’s tanking American companies while pretending it’s patriotism.
The point being that Brexit was an economic disaster, and "only 10%" doesn't even begin to make up for it
No it wasn't Scott. Covid was an economic disaster. The Ukraine war was an economic disaster. Trumponomics might well be an economic disaster, Brexit was an invisible blip by comparison. My expectation is still that it will be a long-term positive, as I think there is a risk of the European economy going through some pretty turbulent times, but either way it is small beer compared to three other economic disasters that have happened since.
Seeing Brexit in isolation from the Trump tariffs, Covid and the Ukraine war makes no sense. Leaving the EU left us more exposed to the consequences of all three.
Hm. But I'd argue we dealt with Covid better than the EU - partly because of Brexit - and I'd argue that, partly as a result of Brexit, we were able to respond more decisively to Ukraine: had we still been a member of the EU, it would have been much more difficult to act unilaterally and any EU response would have been hindered by the anchor of Hungary (and then Slovakia). And we're surely in a better place to respond to Trumponomics outside the EU than in it?
Indeed.
Far from making us "exposed", Brexit has done what it was supposed to and made us more nimble and able to act independently.
It has also removed the EU security blanket and ensured fully accountability for the Government of the day. Of whom we've already evicted one and their replacement know they are fully accountable and can be evicted too.
Had we still been in the EU we'd be facing higher tariffs due to German exports and be expected to have a "unified" rather than individual response.
Should countries try and manufacture lower end goods if they can be made more cheaply elsewhere ?
Manufacturing lower end goods in the USA will see those goods priced much higher than those made in countries with much lower costs .
Either way you will feed inflation , putting tariffs on imports or trying to manufacture those yourself will lead to higher prices .
The higher end manufacturing is somewhat different longer term . But new supply chains and factories can’t just pop up overnight .
So in the meantime you will get higher costs .
There is one argument for onshoring manufacturing, and one only, even if it's more expensive than buying from abroad. And, that is because there is a strategic need to have this manufacturing capacity, in your own country (eg, bringing back the production of microchips to the USA).
Nike just lost nearly $10 billion in market cap in under an hour—because Trump slapped a 46% tariff on Vietnam, where Nike has over 450,000 workers and 130 factories.
The stock cratered nearly 7%, and investors hit the panic button.
That’s not “America First.” That’s tanking American companies while pretending it’s patriotism.
Starmer looks pretty stupid today. He will be seen by voters and the EU as a 'Judas' and in the US and the wider world as Trumps poodle.
We are prepared to break ranks with the EU who we do 10x as much trade with for a pointless pat on the head from Donald.
Historically the role of the quisling is one that lives in the memory for a long time. We have been asked to choose between our nearest and dearest or Trump and his clown show and we've gone for the clown show.
They say Starmer's a lucky general and they're right. If he had any sensible opposition he'd be out on his ear
You shouldn't underestimate how much trade we do with the US:
Top 10 UK export markets for goods and services in 20231
1 United States - £179.4bn - 21.2% of total 2 Germany - £59.4bn - 7.0% 3 Ireland - £54.0bn - 6.4% 4 Netherlands - £52.2bn - 6.2% 5 France - £45.4bn - 5.4%
So the EU is a lot more important than the US. Thanks for confirming.
And we have a comprehensive zero tariff, zero quota trade agreement with the EU along with reduced tariffs from USA too.
Win/win.
The productivity cost of Brexit per OBR is 4% of yearly GDP, according with other economists of up to 6% hit, which maps to around £100 billion a year. The potential US tariff savings against the EU is about $6 billion a year, an order of magnitude less. And this implies the EU/UK tariff difference will be permanent, which is unlikely, while the Brexit cost obviously is permanent.
I'm in favour of the government working to minimise the US tariff hit, as long as it doesn't make concessions that ignore the bigger picture.
The point being that Brexit was an economic disaster, and "only 10%" doesn't even begin to make up for it
No it wasn't Scott. Covid was an economic disaster. The Ukraine war was an economic disaster. Trumponomics might well be an economic disaster, Brexit was an invisible blip by comparison. My expectation is still that it will be a long-term positive, as I think there is a risk of the European economy going through some pretty turbulent times, but either way it is small beer compared to three other economic disasters that have happened since.
Seeing Brexit in isolation from the Trump tariffs, Covid and the Ukraine war makes no sense. Leaving the EU left us more exposed to the consequences of all three.
Hm. But I'd argue we dealt with Covid better than the EU - partly because of Brexit - and I'd argue that, partly as a result of Brexit, we were able to respond more decisively to Ukraine: had we still been a member of the EU, it would have been much more difficult to act unilaterally and any EU response would have been hindered by the anchor of Hungary (and then Slovakia). And we're surely in a better place to respond to Trumponomics outside the EU than in it?
Indeed.
Far from making us "exposed", Brexit has done what it was supposed to and made us more nimble and able to act independently.
It has also removed the EU security blanket and ensured fully accountability for the Government of the day. Of whom we've already evicted one and their replacement know they are fully accountable and can be evicted too.
Had we still been in the EU we'd be facing higher tariffs due to German exports and be expected to have a "unified" rather than individual response.
They should have put that on the side of the bus.
"In the event a lunatic starts a global trade war based on a ratio he copied from Wikipedia, massive trade friction with our nearest neighbours will be mitigated somewhat because our trade deficit on goods with the US will continue to be rubbish..."
Starmer looks pretty stupid today. He will be seen by voters and the EU as a 'Judas' and in the US and the wider world as Trumps poodle.
We are prepared to break ranks with the EU who we do 10x as much trade with for a pointless pat on the head from Donald.
Historically the role of the quisling is one that lives in the memory for a long time. We have been asked to choose between our nearest and dearest or Trump and his clown show and we've gone for the clown show.
They say Starmer's a lucky general and they're right. If he had any sensible opposition he'd be out on his ear
That's a very narrow view of what is going on. Starmer can't afford to pick a fight with Trump as he's one of the few leaders who seems to have some influence on Trump when it comes to Ukraine. Europe needs at least one person who can stop Trump throwing in the towel and handing Ukraine to Russia. I think Starmer is doing a pretty good job all things considered.
Honestly, what good would Starmer's ranting and raving ineffectually against Trump do anybody?
He's looking at the bigger picture.
I'm inclined to agree there.
We need to continue to play both sides whilst we transition to a more autonomous position wrt the USA. That assumes that that is what we are doing , and that Mr S and the Gang are not being too timid.
It must feel like playing blind man's musical chairs, where they all except one have one of these on them (my photo quota):
Brexit cost the UK economy 10 times as much as 'only having 10% tariffs instead of 20%' saves
The reason why our tariffs are lower is because our trade surplus ratio in goods with the US is smaller than the EU's. It's not actually based on the EU's tariffs on the US at all. (Hence why he claimed Cambodia has 97% tariffs - that's just their trade deficit).
So it's a good day at the office for our sub-optimal goods exports....
Though Brexit means our exports get counted independently and we have an economic policy based upon our economic data.
If it weren't for Brexit we'd be paying the price for German exports without getting the advantage of having those exports.
Almost as if having your own trade policies based on your own trade data is a good idea.
You're right, but it's a rather hollow victory. "We're better off outside the EU because our exports are shite".
Germany is a poor example, btw, because their net exports are much better than the EU as a whole. They've been protected by the EU average. By the same token, those parts of the UK with significant exports to the US are relatively better off (except for cars). Chemicals, engines, turbines, electric motors, chemicals, pharmaceuticals etc.
Even hollow victories are still victories.
Germany are a good example, not a poor one, as their gain by being protected by being included in an average would be our loss if we were included in the same average. Which is why we are benefiting by being out just as they gain from being in.
Which is part of what has made the Euro single currency such a bad idea. Policies are getting set on a continental basis when not all countries data shows they need those policies and there's a lack of fiscal transfers between regions that you'd get in a single country with a single currency typically.
People complaining about Trump's tariffs are missing the point. We think they are stupid because they make things more expensive and he's hamfisted, but they do have a purpose. Zeihan (I know, I know) has been saying for over a decade that the US will pull up the drawbridge and retreat from its global role because it can become virtually independent from the entire world if it has Canada and Mexico. This is just formalising that by accelerating onshoring.
It still involves weakening the USA's power and prestige, for reasons that seem unconvincing.
True, but they don't have to convince us, they have to convince the Americans.
The brute-force approach of Musk ("FIRE EVERYBODY NOW!") and Trump ("TARIFF EVERYBODY NOW!") will cause a lot of disruption now, but when the smoke has cleared will the next President (assuming there is one ) reverse those changes?
Starmer looks pretty stupid today. He will be seen by voters and the EU as a 'Judas' and in the US and the wider world as Trumps poodle.
We are prepared to break ranks with the EU who we do 10x as much trade with for a pointless pat on the head from Donald.
Historically the role of the quisling is one that lives in the memory for a long time. We have been asked to choose between our nearest and dearest or Trump and his clown show and we've gone for the clown show.
They say Starmer's a lucky general and they're right. If he had any sensible opposition he'd be out on his ear
That's a very narrow view of what is going on. Starmer can't afford to pick a fight with Trump as he's one of the few leaders who seems to have some influence on Trump when it comes to Ukraine. Europe needs at least one person who can stop Trump throwing in the towel and handing Ukraine to Russia. I think Starmer is doing a pretty good job all things considered.
I would trust the EU's judgement and trading muscle over Starmer's any day. They are the second largest trading block in the world ahead of China and not too far behind the US. Why would we tether our horse to a completely unpredictable and incontinent donkey?
I'm afraid It's time to pick sides
As to influence over Trump with regard to Ukraine.....it reminds me of one of those lunatic asylum jokes that are now politically unacceptable.
The point being that Brexit was an economic disaster, and "only 10%" doesn't even begin to make up for it
No it wasn't Scott. Covid was an economic disaster. The Ukraine war was an economic disaster. Trumponomics might well be an economic disaster, Brexit was an invisible blip by comparison. My expectation is still that it will be a long-term positive, as I think there is a risk of the European economy going through some pretty turbulent times, but either way it is small beer compared to three other economic disasters that have happened since.
Seeing Brexit in isolation from the Trump tariffs, Covid and the Ukraine war makes no sense. Leaving the EU left us more exposed to the consequences of all three.
Hm. But I'd argue we dealt with Covid better than the EU - partly because of Brexit - and I'd argue that, partly as a result of Brexit, we were able to respond more decisively to Ukraine: had we still been a member of the EU, it would have been much more difficult to act unilaterally and any EU response would have been hindered by the anchor of Hungary (and then Slovakia). And we're surely in a better place to respond to Trumponomics outside the EU than in it?
Indeed.
Far from making us "exposed", Brexit has done what it was supposed to and made us more nimble and able to act independently.
It has also removed the EU security blanket and ensured fully accountability for the Government of the day. Of whom we've already evicted one and their replacement know they are fully accountable and can be evicted too.
Had we still been in the EU we'd be facing higher tariffs due to German exports and be expected to have a "unified" rather than individual response.
They should have put that on the side of the bus.
"In the event a lunatic starts a global trade war based on a ratio he copied from Wikipedia, massive trade friction with our nearest neighbours will be mitigated somewhat because our trade deficit on goods with the US will continue to be rubbish..."
Still better than anything Remain could have written by way of a persuasive argument...
Starmer looks pretty stupid today. He will be seen by voters and the EU as a 'Judas' and in the US and the wider world as Trumps poodle.
We are prepared to break ranks with the EU who we do 10x as much trade with for a pointless pat on the head from Donald.
Historically the role of the quisling is one that lives in the memory for a long time. We have been asked to choose between our nearest and dearest or Trump and his clown show and we've gone for the clown show.
They say Starmer's a lucky general and they're right. If he had any sensible opposition he'd be out on his ear
You shouldn't underestimate how much trade we do with the US:
Top 10 UK export markets for goods and services in 20231
1 United States - £179.4bn - 21.2% of total 2 Germany - £59.4bn - 7.0% 3 Ireland - £54.0bn - 6.4% 4 Netherlands - £52.2bn - 6.2% 5 France - £45.4bn - 5.4%
So the EU is a lot more important than the US. Thanks for confirming.
And we have a comprehensive zero tariff, zero quota trade agreement with the EU along with reduced tariffs from USA too.
Win/win.
The productivity cost of Brexit per OBR is 4% of yearly GDP, according with other economists of up to 6% hit, which maps to around £100 billion a year. The potential US tariff savings against the EU is about $6 billion a year, an order of magnitude less. And this implies the EU/UK tariff difference will be permanent, which is unlikely, while the Brexit cost obviously is permanent.
I'm in favour of the government working to minimise the US tariff hit, as long as it doesn't make concessions that ignore the bigger picture.
That productivity cost data is BS.
Taking 2010 as the baseline (so deliberately before Brexit was coined as a term, the referendum, or it's aftermath) the UK has per capita grown by as much/more than the Eurozone.
The idea that in the counterfactual universe where we'd voted Remain we'd have grown by even more than the Eurozone is just unsubstantiated BS. There is no evidence or reason to believe it.
Those projections come from the same Garbage In, Garbage Out modelling that forecast immediate recession and millions unemployed if we voted to Leave.
Starmer looks pretty stupid today. He will be seen by voters and the EU as a 'Judas' and in the US and the wider world as Trumps poodle.
We are prepared to break ranks with the EU who we do 10x as much trade with for a pointless pat on the head from Donald.
Historically the role of the quisling is one that lives in the memory for a long time. We have been asked to choose between our nearest and dearest or Trump and his clown show and we've gone for the clown show.
They say Starmer's a lucky general and they're right. If he had any sensible opposition he'd be out on his ear
That's a very narrow view of what is going on. Starmer can't afford to pick a fight with Trump as he's one of the few leaders who seems to have some influence on Trump when it comes to Ukraine. Europe needs at least one person who can stop Trump throwing in the towel and handing Ukraine to Russia. I think Starmer is doing a pretty good job all things considered.
I would trust the EU's judgement and trading muscle over Starmer's any day. They are the second largest trading block in the world ahead of China and not too far behind the US. Why would we tether our horse to a completely unpredictable and incontinent donkey?
I'm afraid It's time to pick sides
As to influence over Trump with regard to Ukraine.....it reminds me of one of those lunatic asylum jokes that are now politically unacceptable.
Starmer looks pretty stupid today. He will be seen by voters and the EU as a 'Judas' and in the US and the wider world as Trumps poodle.
We are prepared to break ranks with the EU who we do 10x as much trade with for a pointless pat on the head from Donald.
Historically the role of the quisling is one that lives in the memory for a long time. We have been asked to choose between our nearest and dearest or Trump and his clown show and we've gone for the clown show.
They say Starmer's a lucky general and they're right. If he had any sensible opposition he'd be out on his ear
You shouldn't underestimate how much trade we do with the US:
Top 10 UK export markets for goods and services in 20231
1 United States - £179.4bn - 21.2% of total 2 Germany - £59.4bn - 7.0% 3 Ireland - £54.0bn - 6.4% 4 Netherlands - £52.2bn - 6.2% 5 France - £45.4bn - 5.4%
So the EU is a lot more important than the US. Thanks for confirming.
And we have a comprehensive zero tariff, zero quota trade agreement with the EU along with reduced tariffs from USA too.
Win/win.
The productivity cost of Brexit per OBR is 4% of yearly GDP, according with other economists of up to 6% hit, which maps to around £100 billion a year. The potential US tariff savings against the EU is about $6 billion a year, an order of magnitude less. And this implies the EU/UK tariff difference will be permanent, which is unlikely, while the Brexit cost obviously is permanent.
I'm in favour of the government working to minimise the US tariff hit, as long as it doesn't make concessions that ignore the bigger picture.
That productivity cost data is BS.
Taking 2010 as the baseline (so deliberately before Brexit was coined as a term, the referendum, or it's aftermath) the UK has per capita grown by as much/more than the Eurozone.
The idea that in the counterfactual universe where we'd voted Remain we'd have grown by even more than the Eurozone is just unsubstantiated BS. There is no evidence or reason to believe it.
Those projections come from the same Garbage In, Garbage Out modelling that forecast immediate recession and millions unemployed if we voted to Leave.
To paraphrase Trump, "Do you still believe in economic forecasts, because at 37 it's marginal, right?"
Really not bad - covers insulation an passive heat generation, smart heating/lighting controls and things like smart speakers. The biggest miss is the interior design!
Starmer looks pretty stupid today. He will be seen by voters and the EU as a 'Judas' and in the US and the wider world as Trumps poodle.
We are prepared to break ranks with the EU who we do 10x as much trade with for a pointless pat on the head from Donald.
Historically the role of the quisling is one that lives in the memory for a long time. We have been asked to choose between our nearest and dearest or Trump and his clown show and we've gone for the clown show.
They say Starmer's a lucky general and they're right. If he had any sensible opposition he'd be out on his ear
You shouldn't underestimate how much trade we do with the US:
Top 10 UK export markets for goods and services in 20231
1 United States - £179.4bn - 21.2% of total 2 Germany - £59.4bn - 7.0% 3 Ireland - £54.0bn - 6.4% 4 Netherlands - £52.2bn - 6.2% 5 France - £45.4bn - 5.4%
So the EU is a lot more important than the US. Thanks for confirming.
And we have a comprehensive zero tariff, zero quota trade agreement with the EU along with reduced tariffs from USA too.
Win/win.
The productivity cost of Brexit per OBR is 4% of yearly GDP, according with other economists of up to 6% hit, which maps to around £100 billion a year. The potential US tariff savings against the EU is about $6 billion a year, an order of magnitude less. And this implies the EU/UK tariff difference will be permanent, which is unlikely, while the Brexit cost obviously is permanent.
I'm in favour of the government working to minimise the US tariff hit, as long as it doesn't make concessions that ignore the bigger picture.
That productivity cost data is BS.
Taking 2010 as the baseline (so deliberately before Brexit was coined as a term, the referendum, or it's aftermath) the UK has per capita grown by as much/more than the Eurozone.
The idea that in the counterfactual universe where we'd voted Remain we'd have grown by even more than the Eurozone is just unsubstantiated BS. There is no evidence or reason to believe it.
Those projections come from the same Garbage In, Garbage Out modelling that forecast immediate recession and millions unemployed if we voted to Leave.
Brexit was economically illiterate, as your comment here so clearly demonstrates, just as Trump's tariffs are also economically illiterate. The only good thing about the tariffs is that they can be rescinded, as they probably will be eventually, while we're stuck with Brexit permanently.
Really not bad - covers insulation an passive heat generation, smart heating/lighting controls and things like smart speakers. The biggest miss is the interior design!
I bet they missed lockdown and not being able to leave your home in 2020 too!
Starmer looks pretty stupid today. He will be seen by voters and the EU as a 'Judas' and in the US and the wider world as Trumps poodle.
We are prepared to break ranks with the EU who we do 10x as much trade with for a pointless pat on the head from Donald.
Historically the role of the quisling is one that lives in the memory for a long time. We have been asked to choose between our nearest and dearest or Trump and his clown show and we've gone for the clown show.
They say Starmer's a lucky general and they're right. If he had any sensible opposition he'd be out on his ear
You shouldn't underestimate how much trade we do with the US:
Top 10 UK export markets for goods and services in 20231
1 United States - £179.4bn - 21.2% of total 2 Germany - £59.4bn - 7.0% 3 Ireland - £54.0bn - 6.4% 4 Netherlands - £52.2bn - 6.2% 5 France - £45.4bn - 5.4%
So the EU is a lot more important than the US. Thanks for confirming.
And we have a comprehensive zero tariff, zero quota trade agreement with the EU along with reduced tariffs from USA too.
Win/win.
The productivity cost of Brexit per OBR is 4% of yearly GDP, according with other economists of up to 6% hit, which maps to around £100 billion a year. The potential US tariff savings against the EU is about $6 billion a year, an order of magnitude less. And this implies the EU/UK tariff difference will be permanent, which is unlikely, while the Brexit cost obviously is permanent.
I'm in favour of the government working to minimise the US tariff hit, as long as it doesn't make concessions that ignore the bigger picture.
That productivity cost data is BS.
Taking 2010 as the baseline (so deliberately before Brexit was coined as a term, the referendum, or it's aftermath) the UK has per capita grown by as much/more than the Eurozone.
The idea that in the counterfactual universe where we'd voted Remain we'd have grown by even more than the Eurozone is just unsubstantiated BS. There is no evidence or reason to believe it.
Those projections come from the same Garbage In, Garbage Out modelling that forecast immediate recession and millions unemployed if we voted to Leave.
Brexit was economically illiterate, as your comment here so clearly demonstrates, just as Trump's tariffs are also economically illiterate. The only good thing about the tariffs is that they can be rescinded, as they probably will be eventually, while we're stuck with Brexit permanently.
It was only economically illiterate based upon flawed modelling that claimed it was. Modelling whose outcome does not match reality.
Real life data, as I demonstrated, has confounded the modelling.
Brexit cost the UK economy 10 times as much as 'only having 10% tariffs instead of 20%' saves
The reason why our tariffs are lower is because our trade surplus ratio in goods with the US is smaller than the EU's. It's not actually based on the EU's tariffs on the US at all. (Hence why he claimed Cambodia has 97% tariffs - that's just their trade deficit).
So it's a good day at the office for our sub-optimal goods exports....
Though Brexit means our exports get counted independently and we have an economic policy based upon our economic data.
If it weren't for Brexit we'd be paying the price for German exports without getting the advantage of having those exports.
Almost as if having your own trade policies based on your own trade data is a good idea.
You're right, but it's a rather hollow victory. "We're better off outside the EU because our exports are shite".
Germany is a poor example, btw, because their net exports are much better than the EU as a whole. They've been protected by the EU average. By the same token, those parts of the UK with significant exports to the US are relatively better off (except for cars). Chemicals, engines, turbines, electric motors, chemicals, pharmaceuticals etc.
Even hollow victories are still victories.
Germany are a good example, not a poor one, as their gain by being protected by being included in an average would be our loss if we were included in the same average. Which is why we are benefiting by being out just as they gain from being in.
Which is part of what has made the Euro single currency such a bad idea. Policies are getting set on a continental basis when not all countries data shows they need those policies and there's a lack of fiscal transfers between regions that you'd get in a single country with a single currency typically.
As a European idealist I find that kind of 'I'm all right Jack' attitude incredibly depressing. It shouldn't matter if Germany benefits in one respect of its membership and the UK doesn't. The UK benefits in another way because services aren't included in the new tariff regime. The EU would benefit as a whole for having one member with a strong manufacturing export base and having another member which exports lots of services.
Really not bad - covers insulation an passive heat generation, smart heating/lighting controls and things like smart speakers. The biggest miss is the interior design!
I bet they missed lockdown and not being able to leave your home in 2020 too!
Those fancy windows could have transported our homes to some nice holiday location for the duration!
Brexit cost the UK economy 10 times as much as 'only having 10% tariffs instead of 20%' saves
The reason why our tariffs are lower is because our trade surplus ratio in goods with the US is smaller than the EU's. It's not actually based on the EU's tariffs on the US at all. (Hence why he claimed Cambodia has 97% tariffs - that's just their trade deficit).
So it's a good day at the office for our sub-optimal goods exports....
Though Brexit means our exports get counted independently and we have an economic policy based upon our economic data.
If it weren't for Brexit we'd be paying the price for German exports without getting the advantage of having those exports.
Almost as if having your own trade policies based on your own trade data is a good idea.
You're right, but it's a rather hollow victory. "We're better off outside the EU because our exports are shite".
Germany is a poor example, btw, because their net exports are much better than the EU as a whole. They've been protected by the EU average. By the same token, those parts of the UK with significant exports to the US are relatively better off (except for cars). Chemicals, engines, turbines, electric motors, chemicals, pharmaceuticals etc.
Even hollow victories are still victories.
Germany are a good example, not a poor one, as their gain by being protected by being included in an average would be our loss if we were included in the same average. Which is why we are benefiting by being out just as they gain from being in.
Which is part of what has made the Euro single currency such a bad idea. Policies are getting set on a continental basis when not all countries data shows they need those policies and there's a lack of fiscal transfers between regions that you'd get in a single country with a single currency typically.
As a European idealist I find that kind of 'I'm all right Jack' attitude incredibly depressing. It shouldn't matter if Germany benefits in one respect of its membership and the UK doesn't. The UK benefits in another way because services aren't included in the new tariff regime. The EU would benefit as a whole for having one member with a strong manufacturing export base and having another member which exports lots of services.
As an individualist and not an idealist, whether we are alright or not is absolutely what matters more than whether the EU would benefit or not.
Really not bad - covers insulation an passive heat generation, smart heating/lighting controls and things like smart speakers. The biggest miss is the interior design!
That's very interesting, thank-you. But I see no cat.
It seems to overestimate automation, and embedded technology. Notes on passive are relevant, as the Passive Haus concept was around - the first official one was 1990.
But Passive Haus is about passive, which is about making it need less technology except in very limited respects such as little or no heating.
It's also presentation by - I think - the Christine McNulty who was visiting a conference at the Windows on the World Restaurant in the World Trade Centre on September 11th 2001.
Brexit cost the UK economy 10 times as much as 'only having 10% tariffs instead of 20%' saves
The reason why our tariffs are lower is because our trade surplus ratio in goods with the US is smaller than the EU's. It's not actually based on the EU's tariffs on the US at all. (Hence why he claimed Cambodia has 97% tariffs - that's just their trade deficit).
So it's a good day at the office for our sub-optimal goods exports....
Though Brexit means our exports get counted independently and we have an economic policy based upon our economic data.
If it weren't for Brexit we'd be paying the price for German exports without getting the advantage of having those exports.
Almost as if having your own trade policies based on your own trade data is a good idea.
You're right, but it's a rather hollow victory. "We're better off outside the EU because our exports are shite".
Germany is a poor example, btw, because their net exports are much better than the EU as a whole. They've been protected by the EU average. By the same token, those parts of the UK with significant exports to the US are relatively better off (except for cars). Chemicals, engines, turbines, electric motors, chemicals, pharmaceuticals etc.
Even hollow victories are still victories.
Germany are a good example, not a poor one, as their gain by being protected by being included in an average would be our loss if we were included in the same average. Which is why we are benefiting by being out just as they gain from being in.
Which is part of what has made the Euro single currency such a bad idea. Policies are getting set on a continental basis when not all countries data shows they need those policies and there's a lack of fiscal transfers between regions that you'd get in a single country with a single currency typically.
As a European idealist I find that kind of 'I'm all right Jack' attitude incredibly depressing. It shouldn't matter if Germany benefits in one respect of its membership and the UK doesn't. The UK benefits in another way because services aren't included in the new tariff regime. The EU would benefit as a whole for having one member with a strong manufacturing export base and having another member which exports lots of services.
As an individualist and not an idealist, whether we are alright or not is absolutely what matters more than whether the EU would benefit or not.
But we'd be collectively better off. I can console myself that I have loads of food and my neighbour has none but if he has all the water and I don't then we'll both die unless we collaborate.
I would trust the EU's judgement and trading muscle over Starmer's any day. They are the second largest trading block in the world ahead of China and not too far behind the US. Why would we tether our horse to a completely unpredictable and incontinent donkey?
When it comes to the technology we need the EU is a void, they make very little that we could use to substitute for US technology. So making US tech more expensive now would be extremely foolish. Perhaps that will change in time, but it will take many years and a huge amount of investment to bring about. Making US goods and services more expensive now will only make the transformation that is needed harder. If Starmer wants to do anything investment not tariffs makes more sense.
It's a delicious irony that 'Second Vote' Sir Keir has put a more sellable spin on Brexit than the likes of Boris, Farage and Truss ever managed between them. The British Right owe Sir Keir a big, fat, glistening apology.
Really not bad - covers insulation an passive heat generation, smart heating/lighting controls and things like smart speakers. The biggest miss is the interior design!
That's very interesting, thank-you. But I see no cat.
It seems to overestimate automation, and embedded technology. Notes on passive are relevant, as the Passive Haus concept was around - the first official one was 1990.
But Passive Haus is about passive, which is about making it need less technology except in very limited respects such as little or no heating.
It's also presentation by - I think - the Christine McNulty who was visiting a conference at the Windows on the World Restaurant in the World Trade Centre on September 11th 2001.
Really not bad - covers insulation an passive heat generation, smart heating/lighting controls and things like smart speakers. The biggest miss is the interior design!
That's very interesting, thank-you. But I see no cat.
It seems to overestimate automation, and embedded technology. Notes on passive are relevant, as the Passive Haus concept was around - the first official one was 1990.
But Passive Haus is about passive, which is about making it need less technology except in very limited respects such as little or no heating.
It's also presentation by - I think - the Christine McNulty who was visiting a conference at the Windows on the World Restaurant in the World Trade Centre on September 11th 2001.
On absence of cats, it's a utopian vision of the future
Watching it, they also mention reduced use of energy to remove the need for fossil fuels *. And the material aerogel - which I did not know was quite that old.
Nigel and Lee and Donald are twisting again like it was 1989, not last autumn.
Really not bad - covers insulation an passive heat generation, smart heating/lighting controls and things like smart speakers. The biggest miss is the interior design!
That's very interesting, thank-you. But I see no cat.
It seems to overestimate automation, and embedded technology. Notes on passive are relevant, as the Passive Haus concept was around - the first official one was 1990.
But Passive Haus is about passive, which is about making it need less technology except in very limited respects such as little or no heating.
It's also presentation by - I think - the Christine McNulty who was visiting a conference at the Windows on the World Restaurant in the World Trade Centre on September 11th 2001.
On absence of cats, it's a utopian vision of the future
Watching it, they also mention reduced use of energy to remove the need for fossil fuels *. And the material aerogel - which I did not know was quite that old.
Nigel and Lee and Donald are twisting again like it was 1989, not last autumn.
Yes, I also picked up on the aerogel mention - I thought that was much more recent.
Brexit cost the UK economy 10 times as much as 'only having 10% tariffs instead of 20%' saves
There is no doubt this is a positive for Brexit and certainly will make the case to rejoin much harder to make
However, there is a real opportunity for an exciting and new arrangement with countries across the globe coming together in a new and wider security and trading association
The question to be asked is are today's politicians and leaders capable of delivering such a opportunity?
How could anyone possibly think this is a brexit benefit, bit like you only getting one leg cut off and saying it was beneficial as I have one left. madness, almost as crazy as Trumpitis.
Brexit cost the UK economy 10 times as much as 'only having 10% tariffs instead of 20%' saves
There is no doubt this is a positive for Brexit and certainly will make the case to rejoin much harder to make
However, there is a real opportunity for an exciting and new arrangement with countries across the globe coming together in a new and wider security and trading association
The question to be asked is are today's politicians and leaders capable of delivering such a opportunity?
How could anyone possibly think this is a brexit benefit, bit like you only getting one leg cut off and saying it was beneficial as I have one left. madness, almost as crazy as Trumpitis.
In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.
It'd be better to not have any tariffs, but since they're happening whether we like it or not, 10% is absolutely better than 20%.
To an extent the government have had a small boost in that the US tariffs imposed on the UK are lower than those imposed on the EU, Japan, China, India, South Africa etc . Regardless of any subsequent UK response
You are trying to spin yesterday's crushing defeat as a glorious victory
Brexit looks as dumb today as it did yesterday, and will continue to do so
Remoaners are always speciously pointing to the perceived lack of 'Brexit benefits' as if Brexit was meant to be an instant pay cheque, not a freedom that requires actual use to be enjoyed.
Well, by happy coincidence, here you go. Just by being outside the EU, tariffs on our exports to the US are halved vs. those being levied on those from the bloc. And it's happened regardless of how shit the British Government is. You're welcome.
I would be interested to know what you do or did for a living? Did you actually export? Actually have real experience of the barriers Brexit caused. To anyone familiar with preparing carnets should be able to tell you.
I can't see how this point is remotely connected with the point I just made.
Really? Just trying to find out if you have any experience of what you say on here. I have. So do you have any real knowledge of exporting to the EU pre and post Brexit? Have you ever filled in a carnet for instance and sat there at customs having a conversation with a French customs officer.
Maybe practical experience of the pre and post Brexit issues might change your views.
So what do you do?
I don't consider that to be any of your business.
Especially given that my point above has shit all to do with post-Brexit trade frictions with the EU, which I have never denied or belittled.
As an aside, a personal insight into the frustrations of exporting to the EU post-Brexit would not remotely change my views on the wider subject, for many reasons.
Hmm, it isn't, but you pontificate on stuff and we have no idea of your expertise or experience and just about everyone else here has given their background on stuff without doxing themselves.
And to say personal insight into a subject would not change your views on something is mind boggling. I don't know about you, but if I need an operation I go to a surgeon, if I want a bridge built I go to a civil engineer, etc. I don't go to some person with no experience who just gives his/her opinion with no actual experience and thinks actual knowledge might not change his/her mind on stuff.
Trade friction with the EU increasing is a single aspect of the post-Brexit settlement. It would be bizarre if I said that I would change my mind on Brexit because of this single aspect, given that the EU/No EU debate is a vast one, with fiscal, economical, legal, constitutional, democratic, environmental, immigration (al?) and many other facets.
And for those in the real world who and understand business, the idea that the Orange man's differential tariffs between UK and EU will make up for the damage that has been done to the UK economy by the stupidity known as Brexit is quite frankly laughable.
That's a straw man. I have not said that this benefit is a equal or not equal to the drawback of losing completely frictionless trade with the EU. I've just said it's 'a benefit' because it is. It's a shame the remainer contingent both here and it seems on Twitter are too brittle to acknowledge this clear and undeniable fact.
Really not bad - covers insulation an passive heat generation, smart heating/lighting controls and things like smart speakers. The biggest miss is the interior design!
That's very interesting, thank-you. But I see no cat.
It seems to overestimate automation, and embedded technology. Notes on passive are relevant, as the Passive Haus concept was around - the first official one was 1990.
But Passive Haus is about passive, which is about making it need less technology except in very limited respects such as little or no heating.
It's also presentation by - I think - the Christine McNulty who was visiting a conference at the Windows on the World Restaurant in the World Trade Centre on September 11th 2001.
On absence of cats, it's a utopian vision of the future
Watching it, they also mention reduced use of energy to remove the need for fossil fuels *. And the material aerogel - which I did not know was quite that old.
Nigel and Lee and Donald are twisting again like it was 1989, not last autumn.
Aerogel (the developed, producible version) is believed to have come out of experiments to create foam type materials for holariums in nuclear weapons - sometime in the 50s.
Really not bad - covers insulation an passive heat generation, smart heating/lighting controls and things like smart speakers. The biggest miss is the interior design!
Great clip. Like all aspects of 'Sci fi' it is reflective more of its own time more than the future.
Comments
Sky News, "Ireland now has a 20% tariff"
"Northern Ireland has a 10% tariff"
"That is going to make the Windsor framework even harder to implement"
Yay, Brexit!
https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1907544682680156324
Certainly as a partial explanation.
Those trying to understand the tariffs as economic policy are dangerously naive.
No, the tariffs are a tool to collapse our democracy. A means to compel loyalty from every business that will need to petition Trump for relief...
https://x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1907630514493681847
https://x.com/yishan/status/1907632841585995877
This is a post about the fact that large-scale decisions that benefit the national interest often look bad according to conventional metrics and will certainly be decried as bad by the people who have been most successful under the current system!
That is likely to be as true in China as in the US, or anywhere.
After all, if they made things look good under the current metrics, we'd already be doing them quite uncontroversially! So anything non-obvious that needs to be done which isn't already being done is probably going to look really bad by those metrics.
I use China to illustrate this because it has leaders who are willing to take such actions, whereas the US generally does not.
Now... I don't personally know if the tariffs are that thing for the US.
But I do know that if they aren't, pointing out that the stock market is tanking is not a useful way to prove it.
Described as being a very good account of how things have happened over the war for people who have not followed detail daily.
It is also novelette length, which is very NYT. It's been archived here:
https://archive.is/20250403071019/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/29/world/europe/us-ukraine-military-war-wiesbaden.html#selection-280.1-4113.176
There was a conversation on the piece in Ukraine the Latest on Monday. Deep link:
https://youtu.be/dOEQXegQ74U?t=1348
I have not looked yet, other than listen to the conversation on the podcast, as I was writing up a submission about Public Space Protection Orders and the problems they cause for disabled people yesterday, and why the process to create one is generally shit.
Considering Trump's sociopathic narcissism and his need to be at the centre of every and each world news cycle every fucking day, I think his pressing the tariff issue was the least worst option.
Honestly, every time I see Trump I think to myself "seriously is this the guy you voted for?" Kamala was useless and Biden was virtually in a vegetative state, but even so, Trump? Really....
Talking of which, my better half (believer) was teasing me (non-believer) about my going to hell while she goes to heaven. My argument was that it would be a punishment for her to go to heaven and be deprived of my company, so I'd have to get a special dispensation to go to heaven just to keep her happy. She seemed unconvinced
*outcome depends on beliefs and behaviour, not guaranteed, the Creator accepts no liability for participant believing in the incorrect or no deity
Why are people still having trouble accepting that line of reasoning?
The invasion of Taiwan is pending.
A European realignment towards China would be as dumb as anything Trump has done.
Thank you.
Due to the volatility in the region plenty of companies have already been looking to repatriate work.
Still quite amusing to find that Trump has imposed tariffs on the US military base on Diego Garcia.
We'll just have to ignore the US as much as we can while it has its tantrum.
Though the Telegraph also does some good pieces on Ukr, you just need to judge by the Writer's name not the publication's brand.
I could live with that.
(1) Democracy isn't a means to finding the best policies. It's a way of peacefully managing disputes between different people in a complex society. So you wouldn't necessarily expect all the obviously good things to be done, because people are not rational and in a democracy they can prevent obviously good things from happening for whatever irrational reasons they have.
(2) Sometimes a thing is dumb and damaging and causes obviously large damage in a way picked up by the normal metrics. The Emperor is naked. We shouldn't be afraid to say so. There's no method to Trump's madness. He's simply done a dumb thing.
@MeidasTouch
Bloomberg reporter: Plans for conversations or a trip to Beijing?
Bessent: N-nothing imminent when it comes to this negotiation.
Reporter: April 9th, these tariffs come in place. Do you plan on having negotiations before that date?
Bessnet: I-I-again, I'm not part of the negotiations. So you know, w–we'll see.
Reporter: Canada and Mexico, notably missing on that chart. Why is that?
Bessent: Um. I'm not sure.
https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1907590196352418279
Also I just saw Ursula von der Plagiarism - behind a tinted window - the EU is here in Samarkand for a trade summit
Nike just lost nearly $10 billion in market cap in under an hour—because Trump slapped a 46% tariff on Vietnam, where Nike has over 450,000 workers and 130 factories.
The stock cratered nearly 7%, and investors hit the panic button.
That’s not “America First.” That’s tanking American companies while pretending it’s patriotism.
https://x.com/allenanalysis/status/1907639257717457292
We are prepared to break ranks with the EU who we do 10x as much trade with for a pointless pat on the head from Donald.
Historically the role of the quisling is one that lives in the memory for a long time. We have been asked to choose between our nearest and dearest or Trump and his clown show and we've gone for the clown show.
They say Starmer's a lucky general and they're right. If he had any sensible opposition he'd be out on his ear
Here's President Chump's Executive Order from 6/2, which follows his playbook from abusing normal Court Staff during his prosecutions before the election, and his political attacks on the Judiciary since:
IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court/
It's quite something. If you're sibling works for the ICC, you are f*cked - desires Trump:
"The United States will impose tangible and significant consequences on those responsible for the ICC’s transgressions, some of which may include the blocking of property and assets, as well as the suspension of entry into the United States of ICC officials, employees, and agents, as well as their immediate family members, as their entry into our Nation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."
Without an understanding of this area of the EU, one can't make an informed decision. It is like objecting to the wearing of seat belts or vaccines for freedom issues without looking at the other issues and looking at the facts in the round as to why they are a good idea.
I also struggle to understand why you can't let us know your area of expertise without doxing yourself. We know this for just about everyone else here, so we know where they are coming from e.g. Doctors, Lawyers, Scientists, etc when they say stuff.
If it helps, although this is not new to anyone here I studied Mathematics, then started in Consultancy, moved to a large American Computer manufacturer and then set up my own company 30 years ago helping large Corporations, Charities and Government bodies. I have experience of selling and buying to EU countries and also moving non-sold stuff in and out of EU countries whilst being inside and outside of the EU.
If it weren't for Brexit we'd be paying the price for German exports without getting the advantage of having those exports.
Almost as if having your own trade policies based on your own trade data is a good idea.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/trade-and-investment-core-statistics-book/trade-and-investment-core-statistics-book
Top 10 UK export markets for goods and services in 20231
1 United States - £179.4bn - 21.2% of total
2 Germany - £59.4bn - 7.0%
3 Ireland - £54.0bn - 6.4%
4 Netherlands - £52.2bn - 6.2%
5 France - £45.4bn - 5.4%
In fact. It's gone putrid and is now hazardous to health.
Let's bin it.
Let me put this in a way the public school brexiteers will understand -
Because we’re out of the EU, Trump is only giving us 10 strokes of the cane instead of 20 but we’re still hurting from the 60 strokes we got from Brexit.
https://bsky.app/profile/generalboles.bsky.social/post/3llvepqygss2a
Is this part of the grand plan?
It is a strange set of affairs that we really welcome @leon's posts to give us some relief on the subject being discussed, as opposed to it being a leon dominated thread.
As with all things there is more pleasure when you don't overindulge.
It's an assumption that is mostly not supported by precedent. More likely the shoes will still be imported in smaller numbers at a higher cost to consumers with little to no extra production in the US.
At a high-level, the US has been acting as a consumer of last resort for the world's producers. Trump wants them to abdicate from that role.
Win/win.
In traditional Adam Smith capitalism, everyone benefits from free trade. Vietnam gets investment and jobs. America gets cheap trainers.
But that is not what happens because Nike captures most of the profit. Americans still have to pay hundreds of dollars and Vietnamese workers are paid peanuts. Neither group gets the benefit promised by their economics textbooks.
Trump has Ratnered the product.
Manufacturing lower end goods in the USA will see those goods priced much higher than those made in countries with much lower costs .
Either way you will feed inflation , putting tariffs on imports or trying to manufacture those yourself will lead to higher prices .
The higher end manufacturing is somewhat different longer term . But new supply chains and factories can’t just pop up overnight .
So in the meantime you will get higher costs .
Germany is a poor example, btw, because their net exports are much better than the EU as a whole. They've been protected by the EU average. By the same token, those parts of the UK with significant exports to the US are relatively better off (except for cars). Chemicals, engines, turbines, electric motors, chemicals, pharmaceuticals etc.
Can't say that upsets me.
He's looking at the bigger picture.
Good point, why not buy instead a lovely pair of Trump Victory Sneakers for the very reasonable price of $499.
https://gettrumpsneakers.com/products/victory-gold-low-tops-sneakers-copy
I guess these are made in the US although I can’t imagine even the most desperate nation claiming to be responsible for their production.
Far from making us "exposed", Brexit has done what it was supposed to and made us more nimble and able to act independently.
It has also removed the EU security blanket and ensured fully accountability for the Government of the day. Of whom we've already evicted one and their replacement know they are fully accountable and can be evicted too.
Had we still been in the EU we'd be facing higher tariffs due to German exports and be expected to have a "unified" rather than individual response.
I'm in favour of the government working to minimise the US tariff hit, as long as it doesn't make concessions that ignore the bigger picture.
"In the event a lunatic starts a global trade war based on a ratio he copied from Wikipedia, massive trade friction with our nearest neighbours will be mitigated somewhat because our trade deficit on goods with the US will continue to be rubbish..."
We need to continue to play both sides whilst we transition to a more autonomous position wrt the USA. That assumes that that is what we are doing
It must feel like playing blind man's musical chairs, where they all except one have one of these on them (my photo quota):
Germany are a good example, not a poor one, as their gain by being protected by being included in an average would be our loss if we were included in the same average. Which is why we are benefiting by being out just as they gain from being in.
Which is part of what has made the Euro single currency such a bad idea. Policies are getting set on a continental basis when not all countries data shows they need those policies and there's a lack of fiscal transfers between regions that you'd get in a single country with a single currency typically.
The brute-force approach of Musk ("FIRE EVERYBODY NOW!") and Trump ("TARIFF EVERYBODY NOW!") will cause a lot of disruption now, but when the smoke has cleared will the next President (assuming there is one
I'm afraid It's time to pick sides
As to influence over Trump with regard to Ukraine.....it reminds me of one of those lunatic asylum jokes that are now politically unacceptable.
Taking 2010 as the baseline (so deliberately before Brexit was coined as a term, the referendum, or it's aftermath) the UK has per capita grown by as much/more than the Eurozone.
The idea that in the counterfactual universe where we'd voted Remain we'd have grown by even more than the Eurozone is just unsubstantiated BS. There is no evidence or reason to believe it.
Those projections come from the same Garbage In, Garbage Out modelling that forecast immediate recession and millions unemployed if we voted to Leave.
OK I pick the UK. Who do you pick?
Really not bad - covers insulation an passive heat generation, smart heating/lighting controls and things like smart speakers. The biggest miss is the interior design!
Real life data, as I demonstrated, has confounded the modelling.
It seems to overestimate automation, and embedded technology. Notes on passive are relevant, as the Passive Haus concept was around - the first official one was 1990.
But Passive Haus is about passive, which is about making it need less technology except in very limited respects such as little or no heating.
It's also presentation by - I think - the Christine McNulty who was visiting a conference at the Windows on the World Restaurant in the World Trade Centre on September 11th 2001.
https://www.londonremembers.com/subjects/christine-mcnulty
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2036469/brexit-protects-uk-trade-war
Nigel and Lee and Donald are twisting again like it was 1989, not last autumn.
It'd be better to not have any tariffs, but since they're happening whether we like it or not, 10% is absolutely better than 20%.
Indeed it gives us a competitive advantage.