FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The UK has a bright trading future outside of the EU
The UK has a bright trading future outside of the EU
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
"The UK should embrace its future trade prospects outside of the EU with positivity and enthusiasm as there is every chance that it will prosper once outside the customs union, particularly in the likely event that a full Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Europe is achieved within the next few years. Even without such an agreement, the UK stands to do very well as a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and will be able to form mutually advantageous trading arrangements with a broad range of countries around the world. Although it is now clear that FTA negotiations will not proceed in tandem with the Brexit negotiations, a comprehensive FTA with Europe covering goods, services, investment and matters such as intellectual property and e-commerce will most likely be concluded within a few years. Contrary to widespread negative coverage in the press, the average length for finalising an FTA is just over two years. While it might be expected that progress will be somewhat slower when dealing with the EU because of the requirement to have comprehensive trade agreements ratified by its 27 member states, there is every reason to believe that it won’t take as long with the UK. This is because 1: there is already deep regulatory convergence and zero tariffs between the two parties. 2: a UK-EU FTA need not involve either free movement of people or require the jurisdiction of the ECJ. The CETA agreement with Canada contained neither of these. 3: Dispute settlement for a broad range of matters can be dealt with through arbitration panels, which are quite common in international agreements. In fact, the EU is a leading proponent of international arbitration, as evidenced in both CETA and the Vietnamese FTA. If, for political reasons, an FTA with the EU cannot be concluded within a few years, there is a good chance that the parties will be able to operate under some kind of an interim agreement, which could preserve aspects of EU membership for a time, in preparation for either a formal FTA or, if the political will does not materialise, no bespoke trading relationship with the EU. Far from the nightmarish ‘no deal’ scenario that has been pushed by much of the media, the UK will be able to enjoy Most Favoured Nation status with the EU as a member of the WTO. The UK will be able to re-join the WTO quite easily, simply duplicating its schedule of commitments under the GATT and extracting its commitments for services under GATS. There are some minor issues relating to the UK’s share of tariff rate quotas which should be resolved without difficulty. The UK will also want to join the Government Procurement Agreement, which it can do by issuing a declaration to that effect to the WTO. As long as the UK preserves the rights of other WTO members vis-à-vis market access, then there is no reason to expect a complaint from any other members. There is every indication that this is exactly what the UK intends to do. In fact, going forward the UK will likely lower its trade barriers towards other WTO members beyond those of the EU. This should result in economic gains across many sectors, including several which had been protected on behalf of suppliers in other EU member states. In terms of dealing with the EU itself through the WTO, while tariffs will be higher on some goods, these are already reasonably low under the WTO. Economists such as Patrick Minford have suggested that currency depreciation will be enough to negate these disadvantages. Again, contrary to the doom and gloom narrative seen in the mainstream media, there will be no problems with conformity assessment for UK goods entering the EU: since we already have regulatory convergence (and will keep it thanks to the Great Repeal Bill), the EU will not lawfully be able to discriminate against UK goods entering the EU on these grounds. To do so would violate the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement of the WTO. So there will be no queues of trucks lining up at Dover being denied entry, as many have tried to suggest. Trade in services with the EU under WTO terms will be more problematic given that the EU has made very few commitments under the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services treaty. But the UK should be able to conclude some Mutual Recognition Agreements to enhance existing market access, particularly in financial services. Switzerland already has made these arrangements with the EU, as does the US. Of course the greatest advantage to the UK post-Brexit will be that it will be free to conclude its own FTAs with third countries. Although formal negotiations cannot happen while the UK is still a member of the EU, nothing prevents the UK from engaging in informal discussions, and many of these will be commencing shortly. The US and many Commonwealth countries have indicated a willingness to proceed with FTAs and the UK will pursue all of these aggressively, maximising the gains from free trade around the world. On services, the Trade in Services Agreement, currently being negotiated by 23 WTO members, should help achieve greater market access for services in the EU and other leading developed nations. Finally, the UK will also undoubtedly take on a leadership position at the WTO as a champion of free trade. "
Was pleasing to see international trade secretary Liam Fox at the WTO offices this week putting in the preparations for the UK to retake it's own place at the WTO so we can open up the UK to trade with the whole world.  | |||
"So nice to read somebody with a positive view and informed information here. "Or can use the copy and paste function. | |||
"So nice to read somebody with a positive view and informed information here.
Or can use the copy and paste function."And why not? It says what I think, and has been put very well. | |||
"So nice to read somebody with a positive view and informed information here.
Or can use the copy and paste function." | |||
"So nice to read somebody with a positive view and informed information here.
Or can use the copy and paste function.
And why not? It says what I think, and has been put very well."if it was what you thought you could have worded it yourself.. as on the other thread.. | |||
"So nice to read somebody with a positive view and informed information here.
Or can use the copy and paste function.
And why not? It says what I think, and has been put very well."Why not give attribution to the original author or source then? Why plagiarise? It is quite clearly not your work as too well written! 
-Matt | |||
"So nice to read somebody with a positive view and informed information here.
Or can use the copy and paste function.
And why not? It says what I think, and has been put very well.
Why not give attribution to the original author or source then? Why plagiarise? It is quite clearly not your work as too well written!
-Matt"I think they probably left formal education before covering the topic of plagiarism. | |||
"So nice to read somebody with a positive view and informed information here.
Or can use the copy and paste function.
And why not? It says what I think, and has been put very well.
Why not give attribution to the original author or source then? Why plagiarise? It is quite clearly not your work as too well written!
-Matt
I think they probably left formal education before covering the topic of plagiarism. "Lolololol, Remainers on here have been plagiarising stuff off the Web for months on end, funny to see them now moaning about Brexiters doing the same. | |||
"So nice to read somebody with a positive view and informed information here.
Or can use the copy and paste function.
And why not? It says what I think, and has been put very well.
Why not give attribution to the original author or source then? Why plagiarise? It is quite clearly not your work as too well written!
-Matt
I think they probably left formal education before covering the topic of plagiarism.
Lolololol, Remainers on here have been plagiarising stuff off the Web for months on end, funny to see them now moaning about Brexiters doing the same. "No Centaur, they have been quoting sources. I'm guessing your education didn't cover plagiarism either.  | |||
"So nice to read somebody with a positive view and informed information here.
Or can use the copy and paste function.
And why not? It says what I think, and has been put very well.
Why not give attribution to the original author or source then? Why plagiarise? It is quite clearly not your work as too well written!
-Matt
I think they probably left formal education before covering the topic of plagiarism.
Lolololol, Remainers on here have been plagiarising stuff off the Web for months on end, funny to see them now moaning about Brexiters doing the same.
No Centaur, they have been quoting sources. I'm guessing your education didn't cover plagiarism either. "Sources have not always been quoted. You have a very selective memory when it suits. | |||
"So nice to read somebody with a positive view and informed information here.
Or can use the copy and paste function.
And why not? It says what I think, and has been put very well.
Why not give attribution to the original author or source then? Why plagiarise? It is quite clearly not your work as too well written!
-Matt
I think they probably left formal education before covering the topic of plagiarism.
Lolololol, Remainers on here have been plagiarising stuff off the Web for months on end, funny to see them now moaning about Brexiters doing the same.
No Centaur, they have been quoting sources. I'm guessing your education didn't cover plagiarism either.
Sources have not always been quoted. You have a very selective memory when it suits. "Ok so show us an equal lenght, unattributed quote from a Remainer then. | |||
"So nice to read somebody with a positive view and informed information here.
Or can use the copy and paste function.
And why not? It says what I think, and has been put very well."It would be better if you'd at least add a comment yourself at the end of the book you've pasted or quote what you have copying then add your comment then we'd know how to take your post. | |||
| |||
"I would like to know if everything is so rosy on our horizon , why do we sense and see the panic and headless chicken actions of our ministers. I am all for us opening trade with "The rest of the world" but am also aware that the rest of the world has already got established contracts . That will not be changed just because we are looking for a way into the market." Talking common sense like that will see you labelled a traitor for talking your country down. You should surely know that many, many countries are simply aching to deal with the UK. I mean it couldn't possibly because having left the EU, the U.K. bargaining power has been significantly reduced in terms of the scale of power in the deal, | |||
| |||
"I would like to know if everything is so rosy on our horizon , why do we sense and see the panic and headless chicken actions of our ministers. I am all for us opening trade with "The rest of the world" but am also aware that the rest of the world has already got established contracts . That will not be changed just because we are looking for a way into the market. Talking common sense like that will see you labelled a traitor for talking your country down. You should surely know that many, many countries are simply aching to deal with the UK. I mean it couldn't possibly because having left the EU, the U.K. bargaining power has been significantly reduced in terms of the scale of power in the deal," . Omg guys yr so funny it was you who labelled leavers traitors even racists you forget how nasty your posts can get sometimes | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Maybe I am thick. If I manufacture widgets and somebody in the US wants to buy a box for X number of dollars. Do I have to have a trade agreement to sell ?" So you're saying you wouldn't need a trade deal with the EU to sell your box of widgets there either then. | |||
"The UK should embrace its future trade prospects outside of the EU with positivity and enthusiasm as there is every chance that it will prosper once outside the customs union, particularly in the likely event that a full Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Europe is achieved within the next few years. Even without such an agreement, the UK stands to do very well as a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and will be able to form mutually advantageous trading arrangements with a broad range of countries around the world. Although it is now clear that FTA negotiations will not proceed in tandem with the Brexit negotiations, a comprehensive FTA with Europe covering goods, services, investment and matters such as intellectual property and e-commerce will most likely be concluded within a few years. Contrary to widespread negative coverage in the press, the average length for finalising an FTA is just over two years. While it might be expected that progress will be somewhat slower when dealing with the EU because of the requirement to have comprehensive trade agreements ratified by its 27 member states, there is every reason to believe that it won’t take as long with the UK. This is because 1: there is already deep regulatory convergence and zero tariffs between the two parties. 2: a UK-EU FTA need not involve either free movement of people or require the jurisdiction of the ECJ. The CETA agreement with Canada contained neither of these. 3: Dispute settlement for a broad range of matters can be dealt with through arbitration panels, which are quite common in international agreements. In fact, the EU is a leading proponent of international arbitration, as evidenced in both CETA and the Vietnamese FTA. If, for political reasons, an FTA with the EU cannot be concluded within a few years, there is a good chance that the parties will be able to operate under some kind of an interim agreement, which could preserve aspects of EU membership for a time, in preparation for either a formal FTA or, if the political will does not materialise, no bespoke trading relationship with the EU. Far from the nightmarish ‘no deal’ scenario that has been pushed by much of the media, the UK will be able to enjoy Most Favoured Nation status with the EU as a member of the WTO. The UK will be able to re-join the WTO quite easily, simply duplicating its schedule of commitments under the GATT and extracting its commitments for services under GATS. There are some minor issues relating to the UK’s share of tariff rate quotas which should be resolved without difficulty. The UK will also want to join the Government Procurement Agreement, which it can do by issuing a declaration to that effect to the WTO. As long as the UK preserves the rights of other WTO members vis-à-vis market access, then there is no reason to expect a complaint from any other members. There is every indication that this is exactly what the UK intends to do. In fact, going forward the UK will likely lower its trade barriers towards other WTO members beyond those of the EU. This should result in economic gains across many sectors, including several which had been protected on behalf of suppliers in other EU member states. In terms of dealing with the EU itself through the WTO, while tariffs will be higher on some goods, these are already reasonably low under the WTO. Economists such as Patrick Minford have suggested that currency depreciation will be enough to negate these disadvantages. Again, contrary to the doom and gloom narrative seen in the mainstream media, there will be no problems with conformity assessment for UK goods entering the EU: since we already have regulatory convergence (and will keep it thanks to the Great Repeal Bill), the EU will not lawfully be able to discriminate against UK goods entering the EU on these grounds. To do so would violate the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement of the WTO. So there will be no queues of trucks lining up at Dover being denied entry, as many have tried to suggest. Trade in services with the EU under WTO terms will be more problematic given that the EU has made very few commitments under the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services treaty. But the UK should be able to conclude some Mutual Recognition Agreements to enhance existing market access, particularly in financial services. Switzerland already has made these arrangements with the EU, as does the US. Of course the greatest advantage to the UK post-Brexit will be that it will be free to conclude its own FTAs with third countries. Although formal negotiations cannot happen while the UK is still a member of the EU, nothing prevents the UK from engaging in informal discussions, and many of these will be commencing shortly. The US and many Commonwealth countries have indicated a willingness to proceed with FTAs and the UK will pursue all of these aggressively, maximising the gains from free trade around the world. On services, the Trade in Services Agreement, currently being negotiated by 23 WTO members, should help achieve greater market access for services in the EU and other leading developed nations. Finally, the UK will also undoubtedly take on a leadership position at the WTO as a champion of free trade. " Ill keep this short as possible: WTO trade terms are by definition the worst trade terms available. If theres a deal done between the UK and the EU then it will be a worse deal than the UK has now. Tarriffs will make the UKs exports less competitive, they will also make imports more expensive driving up inflation and cost of living. Inflations already high and tarriffs havent even hit yet. A two year average for FTAs include small deals on a narrow range of products or services and is not reflective of the wide ranging comorehensive deals the UK will need. Tarriff rate quotas are actually a major issue, not the minor one your unsourced copy paste article claims. Simply copying over the TRQs isnt an option. Thats just not a thing. The EU and UK will present an option to the WTO. They can either leave the TRQs with the EU which the EU wont want because it will flood their market with foreign goods. The UK could take on the proportionate amount of TRQs it currently uses but that gives up a huge amount of leverage in future trade negotiations. The solution is likely to be some mid point which means getting agreement from the UK, EU27 and the WTO. MRAs arent dependent on the UK having the same standards and laws although that is part of it. Its an agreement that, for example, UK products will be deemed up to standard on the basis of UK regulators and standards. And that means it has to stay that way going forward and not just for today. And MRAs will have to be negotiated for the EU and anywhere else the UK doesnt want to see lorries stopped for inspections and testing which can take days. The UK already has FTAs with third countries through their membership of the EU. By renegotiating these deals they will be offering a small range of products and services and a much smaller market than the combined UK/EU. There are over 125 different deals to be negotiated and replaced and implemented by the UK. On none of them will they get far more favourable terms than they currently have because why would anyone concede more to get less, particularly when the UK is desperate to deal? | |||
"I would like to know if everything is so rosy on our horizon , why do we sense and see the panic and headless chicken actions of our ministers. I am all for us opening trade with "The rest of the world" but am also aware that the rest of the world has already got established contracts . That will not be changed just because we are looking for a way into the market." The rest of the world won't have established contracts with the UK on our exit from the EU. We'll be signing new contracts and new trade deals with many countries all over the world. International trade secretary Liam Fox has a list of 27 countries who have so far indicated they want new trade deals with the UK after Brexit is complete. In the last couple of weeks President of the USA and Prime Minister of Australia have both said they want new trade deals signed quickly with the UK after Brexit. | |||
"So nice to read somebody with a positive view and informed information here.
Or can use the copy and paste function.
And why not? It says what I think, and has been put very well."There is nothing wrong with using copy and paste but you should, at the very least, give an indication of who's words they were originally, whether it's a verbatim copy or paraphrase and possibly some form of context in which the remarks were originally used or made. | |||
"I would like to know if everything is so rosy on our horizon , why do we sense and see the panic and headless chicken actions of our ministers. I am all for us opening trade with "The rest of the world" but am also aware that the rest of the world has already got established contracts . That will not be changed just because we are looking for a way into the market. The rest of the world won't have established contracts with the UK on our exit from the EU. We'll be signing new contracts and new trade deals with many countries all over the world. International trade secretary Liam Fox has a list of 27 countries who have so far indicated they want new trade deals with the UK after Brexit is complete. In the last couple of weeks President of the USA and Prime Minister of Australia have both said they want new trade deals signed quickly with the UK after Brexit. " Did you actually hear what Trump said and the Prime Minister of Australia...as tbh im doubting with your idiotic comments that you did....and tbh what Trumps says and actually does is a different thing altogether as the people of the USA are finding out now....and for your benefit again the Australian Prime Minister said any trade deal with the UK will be done after the one with the EU  | |||
| |||
"The UK should embrace its future trade prospects outside of the EU with positivity and enthusiasm as there is every chance that it will prosper once outside the customs union, particularly in the likely event that a full Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Europe is achieved within the next few years. Even without such an agreement, the UK stands to do very well as a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and will be able to form mutually advantageous trading arrangements with a broad range of countries around the world. Although it is now clear that FTA negotiations will not proceed in tandem with the Brexit negotiations, a comprehensive FTA with Europe covering goods, services, investment and matters such as intellectual property and e-commerce will most likely be concluded within a few years. Contrary to widespread negative coverage in the press, the average length for finalising an FTA is just over two years. While it might be expected that progress will be somewhat slower when dealing with the EU because of the requirement to have comprehensive trade agreements ratified by its 27 member states, there is every reason to believe that it won’t take as long with the UK. This is because 1: there is already deep regulatory convergence and zero tariffs between the two parties. 2: a UK-EU FTA need not involve either free movement of people or require the jurisdiction of the ECJ. The CETA agreement with Canada contained neither of these. 3: Dispute settlement for a broad range of matters can be dealt with through arbitration panels, which are quite common in international agreements. In fact, the EU is a leading proponent of international arbitration, as evidenced in both CETA and the Vietnamese FTA. If, for political reasons, an FTA with the EU cannot be concluded within a few years, there is a good chance that the parties will be able to operate under some kind of an interim agreement, which could preserve aspects of EU membership for a time, in preparation for either a formal FTA or, if the political will does not materialise, no bespoke trading relationship with the EU. Far from the nightmarish ‘no deal’ scenario that has been pushed by much of the media, the UK will be able to enjoy Most Favoured Nation status with the EU as a member of the WTO. The UK will be able to re-join the WTO quite easily, simply duplicating its schedule of commitments under the GATT and extracting its commitments for services under GATS. There are some minor issues relating to the UK’s share of tariff rate quotas which should be resolved without difficulty. The UK will also want to join the Government Procurement Agreement, which it can do by issuing a declaration to that effect to the WTO. As long as the UK preserves the rights of other WTO members vis-à-vis market access, then there is no reason to expect a complaint from any other members. There is every indication that this is exactly what the UK intends to do. In fact, going forward the UK will likely lower its trade barriers towards other WTO members beyond those of the EU. This should result in economic gains across many sectors, including several which had been protected on behalf of suppliers in other EU member states. In terms of dealing with the EU itself through the WTO, while tariffs will be higher on some goods, these are already reasonably low under the WTO. Economists such as Patrick Minford have suggested that currency depreciation will be enough to negate these disadvantages. Again, contrary to the doom and gloom narrative seen in the mainstream media, there will be no problems with conformity assessment for UK goods entering the EU: since we already have regulatory convergence (and will keep it thanks to the Great Repeal Bill), the EU will not lawfully be able to discriminate against UK goods entering the EU on these grounds. To do so would violate the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement of the WTO. So there will be no queues of trucks lining up at Dover being denied entry, as many have tried to suggest. Trade in services with the EU under WTO terms will be more problematic given that the EU has made very few commitments under the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services treaty. But the UK should be able to conclude some Mutual Recognition Agreements to enhance existing market access, particularly in financial services. Switzerland already has made these arrangements with the EU, as does the US. Of course the greatest advantage to the UK post-Brexit will be that it will be free to conclude its own FTAs with third countries. Although formal negotiations cannot happen while the UK is still a member of the EU, nothing prevents the UK from engaging in informal discussions, and many of these will be commencing shortly. The US and many Commonwealth countries have indicated a willingness to proceed with FTAs and the UK will pursue all of these aggressively, maximising the gains from free trade around the world. On services, the Trade in Services Agreement, currently being negotiated by 23 WTO members, should help achieve greater market access for services in the EU and other leading developed nations. Finally, the UK will also undoubtedly take on a leadership position at the WTO as a champion of free trade. " I'm sure David Collins and Brexit Central are deliriously happy that youre plagiarising their publications. it really isnt hard to attribute stuff you know. | |||
| |||
| |||
"So nice to read somebody with a positive view and informed information here.
Or can use the copy and paste function.
And why not? It says what I think, and has been put very well.
Why not give attribution to the original author or source then? Why plagiarise? It is quite clearly not your work as too well written!
-Matt
I think they probably left formal education before covering the topic of plagiarism.
Lolololol, Remainers on here have been plagiarising stuff off the Web for months on end, funny to see them now moaning about Brexiters doing the same. "Citation needed | |||
| |||
| |||
"I manage to buy raw materials from China and sell a manufactured, finished product to the Usa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, as well as the eu. It's all very simple already regardless of the country." How much more would the raw materials cost if you couldnt avail of the lower tarrifs the EU negotiated and how much tax would you have to add in to your customers bill without the agreements the EU has with the Usa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and with no free trade with EU countries? And could your customers get what you produced cheaper from someone who didnt have those additional costs? | |||
"I manage to buy raw materials from China and sell a manufactured, finished product to the Usa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, as well as the eu. It's all very simple already regardless of the country." If you do so , then it is even today under the umbrella privileges of existing trade deals of the EU with those jurisdictions, which will expire for the U.K. With Brexit coming into force. Tell us how easy it is once you cannot use these EU deals anymore  | |||
"EU have 28 countries and so far only usa and maibe india? It will cost more to import/export as they are further away lol." Why argue, just accept : they WON , | |||
"I manage to buy raw materials from China and sell a manufactured, finished product to the Usa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, as well as the eu. It's all very simple already regardless of the country. If you do so , then it is even today under the umbrella privileges of existing trade deals of the EU with those jurisdictions, which will expire for the U.K. With Brexit coming into force. Tell us how easy it is once you cannot use these EU deals anymore "Tell me about these trade deals with usa, canada, australia, new zealand. What do they currently give? | |||
"I manage to buy raw materials from China and sell a manufactured, finished product to the Usa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, as well as the eu. It's all very simple already regardless of the country." Maybe because we're in the EU at the moment so nothings a problem. After we leave you won't have a clue what taxes will be involved until trades been sorted out. | |||
"EU have 28 countries and so far only usa and maibe india? It will cost more to import/export as they are further away lol. Why argue, just accept : they WON , "Yes, everyone knows that being in the eu is the best, with england, they dont know what is best for them, until it is too late. | |||
| |||
"I manage to buy raw materials from China and sell a manufactured, finished product to the Usa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, as well as the eu. It's all very simple already regardless of the country. Maybe because we're in the EU at the moment so nothings a problem. After we leave you won't have a clue what taxes will be involved until trades been sorted out." No, every single item you can sell has a Commodity Code. The tariffs are published. It's all very simple. It's not do do with the eu. Uk exports to non-eu countries are done like that now. It's not an eu thing. | |||
"I manage to buy raw materials from China and sell a manufactured, finished product to the Usa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, as well as the eu. It's all very simple already regardless of the country. If you do so , then it is even today under the umbrella privileges of existing trade deals of the EU with those jurisdictions, which will expire for the U.K. With Brexit coming into force. Tell us how easy it is once you cannot use these EU deals anymore
Tell me about these trade deals with usa, canada, australia, new zealand. What do they currently give?"
You want me to summarise 4 different massive trade deals for you. Really?
At its very basic level we have mutual recognition agreements with countries. This means that, for example, Australia and the EU agree to a set of standards, regulation and assesment for many incoming manufactured goods. This does away with the need for an exporter from the EU to Australia (you for example) having to pay storage costs and for testing of your products to ensure they meet Australias standards. It also allows companies to operate JIT stock management instead of having capital tied up in stock to meet orders.
We also have an agreement on quotas and tariffs to reduce costs for exporters like you. No quotas and no reduced tariffs would mean that you'd face higher costs.
So unless you provide something very unique your costs will go up as a result of Brexit while your EU and Australian competitors will stay the same or actually decrease because Australia wants an improved deal with the EU before moving on to a UK deal.
If you can maintain your sales figures while putting up your prices 10 or 20 percent then you're clearly undervaluing your product. More likely is that these extra prices will mean you lose customers. | |||
| |||
"Not reply+quoting to the above, but the tariff on most worldwide commodities is no where near 20%. Most of mine are in the average band of 5%. They aren't in a tariff reduced scheme. The technical standards will still apply post brexit. So what will change with our exports to australia specifically? Nothing. Exports to eu, different story, to be negotiated. But your tale about RoW isn't valid." The tariff wont be 20% but Im factoring increased raw material cost tariffs as you said you source from China, increased tariffs to Australia and the additional conforming costs in a very broad estimate. The technical standards will have to be negotiated, ratified, passed into law by both countries and implemented. That takes time, in the end the UK will have many of the MRAs that they currently do but unless theyre ready to go March 2019 or at the end of a transitional arrangement then costs will go up, customers will be lost and winning them back is harder than keeping them. | |||
"Not reply+quoting to the above, but the tariff on most worldwide commodities is no where near 20%. Most of mine are in the average band of 5%. They aren't in a tariff reduced scheme. The technical standards will still apply post brexit. So what will change with our exports to australia specifically? Nothing. Exports to eu, different story, to be negotiated. But your tale about RoW isn't valid. The tariff wont be 20% but Im factoring increased raw material cost tariffs as you said you source from China, increased tariffs to Australia and the additional conforming costs in a very broad estimate. The technical standards will have to be negotiated, ratified, passed into law by both countries and implemented. That takes time, in the end the UK will have many of the MRAs that they currently do but unless theyre ready to go March 2019 or at the end of a transitional arrangement then costs will go up, customers will be lost and winning them back is harder than keeping them." Currently there is no tariff reduction from China or to Australia. Import duty from China is payable and export duty to Australia is payable, all at WTO. I agree eu stuff needs negotiating, but this outside eu stuff isn't true. | |||
"EU have 28 countries and so far only usa and maibe india? It will cost more to import/export as they are further away lol." International trade secretary Liam Fox said on his last appearance on BBC question time that he has a list of 27 countries outside of the EU who want trade deals with the UK after Brexit. Just the other day the Prime minister of New Zealand said he wanted a free trade deal with the UK after Brexit. | |||
"International trade secretary Liam Fox said on his last appearance on BBC question time that he has a list of 27 countries outside of the EU who want trade deals with the UK after Brexit. Just the other day the Prime minister of New Zealand said he wanted a free trade deal with the UK after Brexit. " Counting chickens again... | |||
| |||
"EU have 28 countries and so far only usa and maibe india? It will cost more to import/export as they are further away lol. International trade secretary Liam Fox said on his last appearance on BBC question time that he has a list of 27 countries outside of the EU who want trade deals with the UK after Brexit. Just the other day the Prime minister of New Zealand said he wanted a free trade deal with the UK after Brexit. " But is that not an obvious statement to make? What does it actually mean though? No one knows the details but let's make some educated assumptions based on what we know. Trade deals are negotiated using a formula that is based on the size of the respective economies. So lets say for simplicity that economy A was 100% larger than economy B then the trade deal would be reflected 100% in favour of economy A. So as part of the EU, the UK was coming into trade negotiations say with an 90% leverage over New Zealand, but outside of the EU, that leverage is 60%. How can the UK possibly get a better trade deal than it has today with less leverage? Is there some magical formula that Liam Fox sprinkles on documents and on the floor in front of people and suddenly they say.... "Ah... but of course, you are British." I am fairly sure that there are a number of countries that see the Uk's exit from the EU as being a way of balancing out whatr they see as unfavourable terms because the UK's strength of position in the EU. | |||
"EU have 28 countries and so far only usa and maibe india? It will cost more to import/export as they are further away lol. International trade secretary Liam Fox said on his last appearance on BBC question time that he has a list of 27 countries outside of the EU who want trade deals with the UK after Brexit. Just the other day the Prime minister of New Zealand said he wanted a free trade deal with the UK after Brexit. But is that not an obvious statement to make? What does it actually mean though? No one knows the details but let's make some educated assumptions based on what we know. Trade deals are negotiated using a formula that is based on the size of the respective economies. So lets say for simplicity that economy A was 100% larger than economy B then the trade deal would be reflected 100% in favour of economy A. So as part of the EU, the UK was coming into trade negotiations say with an 90% leverage over New Zealand, but outside of the EU, that leverage is 60%. How can the UK possibly get a better trade deal than it has today with less leverage? Is there some magical formula that Liam Fox sprinkles on documents and on the floor in front of people and suddenly they say.... "Ah... but of course, you are British." I am fairly sure that there are a number of countries that see the Uk's exit from the EU as being a way of balancing out whatr they see as unfavourable terms because the UK's strength of position in the EU." So us leaving the EU weakens the EU's negotiating powers as well? | |||
"EU have 28 countries and so far only usa and maibe india? It will cost more to import/export as they are further away lol. International trade secretary Liam Fox said on his last appearance on BBC question time that he has a list of 27 countries outside of the EU who want trade deals with the UK after Brexit. Just the other day the Prime minister of New Zealand said he wanted a free trade deal with the UK after Brexit. But is that not an obvious statement to make? What does it actually mean though? No one knows the details but let's make some educated assumptions based on what we know. Trade deals are negotiated using a formula that is based on the size of the respective economies. So lets say for simplicity that economy A was 100% larger than economy B then the trade deal would be reflected 100% in favour of economy A. So as part of the EU, the UK was coming into trade negotiations say with an 90% leverage over New Zealand, but outside of the EU, that leverage is 60%. How can the UK possibly get a better trade deal than it has today with less leverage? Is there some magical formula that Liam Fox sprinkles on documents and on the floor in front of people and suddenly they say.... "Ah... but of course, you are British." I am fairly sure that there are a number of countries that see the Uk's exit from the EU as being a way of balancing out whatr they see as unfavourable terms because the UK's strength of position in the EU. So us leaving the EU weakens the EU's negotiating powers as well?" Well acorrding to the Chancellor of the exchequer is weakened the UK growth this year | |||
"EU have 28 countries and so far only usa and maibe india? It will cost more to import/export as they are further away lol. International trade secretary Liam Fox said on his last appearance on BBC question time that he has a list of 27 countries outside of the EU who want trade deals with the UK after Brexit. Just the other day the Prime minister of New Zealand said he wanted a free trade deal with the UK after Brexit. But is that not an obvious statement to make? What does it actually mean though? No one knows the details but let's make some educated assumptions based on what we know. Trade deals are negotiated using a formula that is based on the size of the respective economies. So lets say for simplicity that economy A was 100% larger than economy B then the trade deal would be reflected 100% in favour of economy A. So as part of the EU, the UK was coming into trade negotiations say with an 90% leverage over New Zealand, but outside of the EU, that leverage is 60%. How can the UK possibly get a better trade deal than it has today with less leverage? Is there some magical formula that Liam Fox sprinkles on documents and on the floor in front of people and suddenly they say.... "Ah... but of course, you are British." I am fairly sure that there are a number of countries that see the Uk's exit from the EU as being a way of balancing out whatr they see as unfavourable terms because the UK's strength of position in the EU. So us leaving the EU weakens the EU's negotiating powers as well? Well acorrding to the Chancellor of the exchequer is weakened the UK growth this year "We're still in positive growth territory though aren't we. Last year during the EU referendum campaign the project fear remain scaremongers said a vote to leave would lead to a recession in the UK in 2017. It hasn't happened and there has been no recession. | |||
"EU have 28 countries and so far only usa and maibe india? It will cost more to import/export as they are further away lol. International trade secretary Liam Fox said on his last appearance on BBC question time that he has a list of 27 countries outside of the EU who want trade deals with the UK after Brexit. Just the other day the Prime minister of New Zealand said he wanted a free trade deal with the UK after Brexit. But is that not an obvious statement to make? What does it actually mean though? No one knows the details but let's make some educated assumptions based on what we know. Trade deals are negotiated using a formula that is based on the size of the respective economies. So lets say for simplicity that economy A was 100% larger than economy B then the trade deal would be reflected 100% in favour of economy A. So as part of the EU, the UK was coming into trade negotiations say with an 90% leverage over New Zealand, but outside of the EU, that leverage is 60%. How can the UK possibly get a better trade deal than it has today with less leverage? Is there some magical formula that Liam Fox sprinkles on documents and on the floor in front of people and suddenly they say.... "Ah... but of course, you are British." I am fairly sure that there are a number of countries that see the Uk's exit from the EU as being a way of balancing out whatr they see as unfavourable terms because the UK's strength of position in the EU. So us leaving the EU weakens the EU's negotiating powers as well? Well acorrding to the Chancellor of the exchequer is weakened the UK growth this year
We're still in positive growth territory though aren't we. Last year during the EU referendum campaign the project fear remain scaremongers said a vote to leave would lead to a recession in the UK in 2017. It hasn't happened and there has been no recession. "Are you blinkered....were having the lowest growth since 2012 and the Tory Chancellor Phillip Hammond has put it all at the uncertainty over Brexit....wake up and get your head out your ass | |||
"EU have 28 countries and so far only usa and maibe india? It will cost more to import/export as they are further away lol. International trade secretary Liam Fox said on his last appearance on BBC question time that he has a list of 27 countries outside of the EU who want trade deals with the UK after Brexit. Just the other day the Prime minister of New Zealand said he wanted a free trade deal with the UK after Brexit. But is that not an obvious statement to make? What does it actually mean though? No one knows the details but let's make some educated assumptions based on what we know. Trade deals are negotiated using a formula that is based on the size of the respective economies. So lets say for simplicity that economy A was 100% larger than economy B then the trade deal would be reflected 100% in favour of economy A. So as part of the EU, the UK was coming into trade negotiations say with an 90% leverage over New Zealand, but outside of the EU, that leverage is 60%. How can the UK possibly get a better trade deal than it has today with less leverage? Is there some magical formula that Liam Fox sprinkles on documents and on the floor in front of people and suddenly they say.... "Ah... but of course, you are British." I am fairly sure that there are a number of countries that see the Uk's exit from the EU as being a way of balancing out whatr they see as unfavourable terms because the UK's strength of position in the EU. So us leaving the EU weakens the EU's negotiating powers as well? Well acorrding to the Chancellor of the exchequer is weakened the UK growth this year
We're still in positive growth territory though aren't we. Last year during the EU referendum campaign the project fear remain scaremongers said a vote to leave would lead to a recession in the UK in 2017. It hasn't happened and there has been no recession.
Are you blinkered....were having the lowest growth since 2012 and the Tory Chancellor Phillip Hammond has put it all at the uncertainty over Brexit....wake up and get your head out your ass "As well as the governor of the bank of England | |||
"EU have 28 countries and so far only usa and maibe india? It will cost more to import/export as they are further away lol. International trade secretary Liam Fox said on his last appearance on BBC question time that he has a list of 27 countries outside of the EU who want trade deals with the UK after Brexit. Just the other day the Prime minister of New Zealand said he wanted a free trade deal with the UK after Brexit. But is that not an obvious statement to make? What does it actually mean though? No one knows the details but let's make some educated assumptions based on what we know. Trade deals are negotiated using a formula that is based on the size of the respective economies. So lets say for simplicity that economy A was 100% larger than economy B then the trade deal would be reflected 100% in favour of economy A. So as part of the EU, the UK was coming into trade negotiations say with an 90% leverage over New Zealand, but outside of the EU, that leverage is 60%. How can the UK possibly get a better trade deal than it has today with less leverage? Is there some magical formula that Liam Fox sprinkles on documents and on the floor in front of people and suddenly they say.... "Ah... but of course, you are British." I am fairly sure that there are a number of countries that see the Uk's exit from the EU as being a way of balancing out whatr they see as unfavourable terms because the UK's strength of position in the EU. So us leaving the EU weakens the EU's negotiating powers as well? Well acorrding to the Chancellor of the exchequer is weakened the UK growth this year
We're still in positive growth territory though aren't we. Last year during the EU referendum campaign the project fear remain scaremongers said a vote to leave would lead to a recession in the UK in 2017. It hasn't happened and there has been no recession. "So you're answer is Brexit is shit, but not as shit as it could have been? | |||
"EU have 28 countries and so far only usa and maibe india? It will cost more to import/export as they are further away lol. International trade secretary Liam Fox said on his last appearance on BBC question time that he has a list of 27 countries outside of the EU who want trade deals with the UK after Brexit. Just the other day the Prime minister of New Zealand said he wanted a free trade deal with the UK after Brexit. But is that not an obvious statement to make? What does it actually mean though? No one knows the details but let's make some educated assumptions based on what we know. Trade deals are negotiated using a formula that is based on the size of the respective economies. So lets say for simplicity that economy A was 100% larger than economy B then the trade deal would be reflected 100% in favour of economy A. So as part of the EU, the UK was coming into trade negotiations say with an 90% leverage over New Zealand, but outside of the EU, that leverage is 60%. How can the UK possibly get a better trade deal than it has today with less leverage? Is there some magical formula that Liam Fox sprinkles on documents and on the floor in front of people and suddenly they say.... "Ah... but of course, you are British." I am fairly sure that there are a number of countries that see the Uk's exit from the EU as being a way of balancing out whatr they see as unfavourable terms because the UK's strength of position in the EU. So us leaving the EU weakens the EU's negotiating powers as well? Well acorrding to the Chancellor of the exchequer is weakened the UK growth this year
We're still in positive growth territory though aren't we. Last year during the EU referendum campaign the project fear remain scaremongers said a vote to leave would lead to a recession in the UK in 2017. It hasn't happened and there has been no recession.
Are you blinkered....were having the lowest growth since 2012 and the Tory Chancellor Phillip Hammond has put it all at the uncertainty over Brexit....wake up and get your head out your ass "It's you who has your head up your arse although it's no surprise as you support a team with Arse in the name, up the Arsenal.
The IMF released its forecast for the UK economy on Monday and the IMF said the UK economy will grow by 1.7% this year. Where is the recession that the remain campaign Project Fear scaremongers forecast for 2017 if the country voted Leave? It hasn't happened like much of the remain campaign propaganda that recession forecast was bullshit. | |||
"EU have 28 countries and so far only usa and maibe india? It will cost more to import/export as they are further away lol. International trade secretary Liam Fox said on his last appearance on BBC question time that he has a list of 27 countries outside of the EU who want trade deals with the UK after Brexit. Just the other day the Prime minister of New Zealand said he wanted a free trade deal with the UK after Brexit. But is that not an obvious statement to make? What does it actually mean though? No one knows the details but let's make some educated assumptions based on what we know. Trade deals are negotiated using a formula that is based on the size of the respective economies. So lets say for simplicity that economy A was 100% larger than economy B then the trade deal would be reflected 100% in favour of economy A. So as part of the EU, the UK was coming into trade negotiations say with an 90% leverage over New Zealand, but outside of the EU, that leverage is 60%. How can the UK possibly get a better trade deal than it has today with less leverage? Is there some magical formula that Liam Fox sprinkles on documents and on the floor in front of people and suddenly they say.... "Ah... but of course, you are British." I am fairly sure that there are a number of countries that see the Uk's exit from the EU as being a way of balancing out whatr they see as unfavourable terms because the UK's strength of position in the EU. So us leaving the EU weakens the EU's negotiating powers as well? Well acorrding to the Chancellor of the exchequer is weakened the UK growth this year
We're still in positive growth territory though aren't we. Last year during the EU referendum campaign the project fear remain scaremongers said a vote to leave would lead to a recession in the UK in 2017. It hasn't happened and there has been no recession.
Are you blinkered....were having the lowest growth since 2012 and the Tory Chancellor Phillip Hammond has put it all at the uncertainty over Brexit....wake up and get your head out your ass
It's you who has your head up your arse although it's no surprise as you support a team with Arse in the name, up the Arsenal.
The IMF released its forecast for the UK economy on Monday and the IMF said the UK economy will grow by 1.7% this year. Where is the recession that the remain campaign Project Fear scaremongers forecast for 2017 if the country voted Leave? It hasn't happened like much of the remain campaign propaganda that recession forecast was bullshit. "I quote The International Monetary Fund has downgraded its forecast for Britain’s economy, describing its recent performance as “tepid”. In a summer update to its twice yearly forecasts, the fund said the UK economy was slowing and likely to grow only 1.7 per cent this year, down 0.3 percentage points from its forecast in April. https://www.ft.com/content/5ebf7170-703d-11e7-aca6-c6bd07df1a3c | |||
"EU have 28 countries and so far only usa and maibe india? It will cost more to import/export as they are further away lol. International trade secretary Liam Fox said on his last appearance on BBC question time that he has a list of 27 countries outside of the EU who want trade deals with the UK after Brexit. Just the other day the Prime minister of New Zealand said he wanted a free trade deal with the UK after Brexit. But is that not an obvious statement to make? What does it actually mean though? No one knows the details but let's make some educated assumptions based on what we know. Trade deals are negotiated using a formula that is based on the size of the respective economies. So lets say for simplicity that economy A was 100% larger than economy B then the trade deal would be reflected 100% in favour of economy A. So as part of the EU, the UK was coming into trade negotiations say with an 90% leverage over New Zealand, but outside of the EU, that leverage is 60%. How can the UK possibly get a better trade deal than it has today with less leverage? Is there some magical formula that Liam Fox sprinkles on documents and on the floor in front of people and suddenly they say.... "Ah... but of course, you are British." I am fairly sure that there are a number of countries that see the Uk's exit from the EU as being a way of balancing out whatr they see as unfavourable terms because the UK's strength of position in the EU. So us leaving the EU weakens the EU's negotiating powers as well? Well acorrding to the Chancellor of the exchequer is weakened the UK growth this year
We're still in positive growth territory though aren't we. Last year during the EU referendum campaign the project fear remain scaremongers said a vote to leave would lead to a recession in the UK in 2017. It hasn't happened and there has been no recession.
Are you blinkered....were having the lowest growth since 2012 and the Tory Chancellor Phillip Hammond has put it all at the uncertainty over Brexit....wake up and get your head out your ass
It's you who has your head up your arse although it's no surprise as you support a team with Arse in the name, up the Arsenal.
The IMF released its forecast for the UK economy on Monday and the IMF said the UK economy will grow by 1.7% this year. Where is the recession that the remain campaign Project Fear scaremongers forecast for 2017 if the country voted Leave? It hasn't happened like much of the remain campaign propaganda that recession forecast was bullshit.
I quote
The International Monetary Fund has downgraded its forecast for Britain’s economy, describing its recent performance as “tepid”.
In a summer update to its twice yearly forecasts, the fund said the UK economy was slowing and likely to grow only 1.7 per cent this year, down 0.3 percentage points from its forecast in April.
https://www.ft.com/content/5ebf7170-703d-11e7-aca6-c6bd07df1a3c"Where is the recession that the IMF and the Remain campaign forecast last year then? It hasn't happened the UK economy is still growing. | |||
"EU have 28 countries and so far only usa and maibe india? It will cost more to import/export as they are further away lol. International trade secretary Liam Fox said on his last appearance on BBC question time that he has a list of 27 countries outside of the EU who want trade deals with the UK after Brexit. Just the other day the Prime minister of New Zealand said he wanted a free trade deal with the UK after Brexit. But is that not an obvious statement to make? What does it actually mean though? No one knows the details but let's make some educated assumptions based on what we know. Trade deals are negotiated using a formula that is based on the size of the respective economies. So lets say for simplicity that economy A was 100% larger than economy B then the trade deal would be reflected 100% in favour of economy A. So as part of the EU, the UK was coming into trade negotiations say with an 90% leverage over New Zealand, but outside of the EU, that leverage is 60%. How can the UK possibly get a better trade deal than it has today with less leverage? Is there some magical formula that Liam Fox sprinkles on documents and on the floor in front of people and suddenly they say.... "Ah... but of course, you are British." I am fairly sure that there are a number of countries that see the Uk's exit from the EU as being a way of balancing out whatr they see as unfavourable terms because the UK's strength of position in the EU. So us leaving the EU weakens the EU's negotiating powers as well? Well acorrding to the Chancellor of the exchequer is weakened the UK growth this year
We're still in positive growth territory though aren't we. Last year during the EU referendum campaign the project fear remain scaremongers said a vote to leave would lead to a recession in the UK in 2017. It hasn't happened and there has been no recession.
Are you blinkered....were having the lowest growth since 2012 and the Tory Chancellor Phillip Hammond has put it all at the uncertainty over Brexit....wake up and get your head out your ass
It's you who has your head up your arse although it's no surprise as you support a team with Arse in the name, up the Arsenal.
The IMF released its forecast for the UK economy on Monday and the IMF said the UK economy will grow by 1.7% this year. Where is the recession that the remain campaign Project Fear scaremongers forecast for 2017 if the country voted Leave? It hasn't happened like much of the remain campaign propaganda that recession forecast was bullshit.
I quote
The International Monetary Fund has downgraded its forecast for Britain’s economy, describing its recent performance as “tepid”.
In a summer update to its twice yearly forecasts, the fund said the UK economy was slowing and likely to grow only 1.7 per cent this year, down 0.3 percentage points from its forecast in April.
https://www.ft.com/content/5ebf7170-703d-11e7-aca6-c6bd07df1a3c
Where is the recession that the IMF and the Remain campaign forecast last year then? It hasn't happened the UK economy is still growing. "Please provide links to your accusations | |||
"EU have 28 countries and so far only usa and maibe india? It will cost more to import/export as they are further away lol. International trade secretary Liam Fox said on his last appearance on BBC question time that he has a list of 27 countries outside of the EU who want trade deals with the UK after Brexit. Just the other day the Prime minister of New Zealand said he wanted a free trade deal with the UK after Brexit. But is that not an obvious statement to make? What does it actually mean though? No one knows the details but let's make some educated assumptions based on what we know. Trade deals are negotiated using a formula that is based on the size of the respective economies. So lets say for simplicity that economy A was 100% larger than economy B then the trade deal would be reflected 100% in favour of economy A. So as part of the EU, the UK was coming into trade negotiations say with an 90% leverage over New Zealand, but outside of the EU, that leverage is 60%. How can the UK possibly get a better trade deal than it has today with less leverage? Is there some magical formula that Liam Fox sprinkles on documents and on the floor in front of people and suddenly they say.... "Ah... but of course, you are British." I am fairly sure that there are a number of countries that see the Uk's exit from the EU as being a way of balancing out whatr they see as unfavourable terms because the UK's strength of position in the EU. So us leaving the EU weakens the EU's negotiating powers as well? Well acorrding to the Chancellor of the exchequer is weakened the UK growth this year
We're still in positive growth territory though aren't we. Last year during the EU referendum campaign the project fear remain scaremongers said a vote to leave would lead to a recession in the UK in 2017. It hasn't happened and there has been no recession.
Are you blinkered....were having the lowest growth since 2012 and the Tory Chancellor Phillip Hammond has put it all at the uncertainty over Brexit....wake up and get your head out your ass
It's you who has your head up your arse although it's no surprise as you support a team with Arse in the name, up the Arsenal.
The IMF released its forecast for the UK economy on Monday and the IMF said the UK economy will grow by 1.7% this year. Where is the recession that the remain campaign Project Fear scaremongers forecast for 2017 if the country voted Leave? It hasn't happened like much of the remain campaign propaganda that recession forecast was bullshit.
I quote
The International Monetary Fund has downgraded its forecast for Britain’s economy, describing its recent performance as “tepid”.
In a summer update to its twice yearly forecasts, the fund said the UK economy was slowing and likely to grow only 1.7 per cent this year, down 0.3 percentage points from its forecast in April.
https://www.ft.com/content/5ebf7170-703d-11e7-aca6-c6bd07df1a3c
Where is the recession that the IMF and the Remain campaign forecast last year then? It hasn't happened the UK economy is still growing.
Please provide links to your accusations "FFS have you been living in a cave for the last year?
This is common knowledge to anyone who took an ounce of interest in the referendum campaigns and is easily checked on Google. | |||
"EU have 28 countries and so far only usa and maibe india? It will cost more to import/export as they are further away lol. International trade secretary Liam Fox said on his last appearance on BBC question time that he has a list of 27 countries outside of the EU who want trade deals with the UK after Brexit. Just the other day the Prime minister of New Zealand said he wanted a free trade deal with the UK after Brexit. But is that not an obvious statement to make? What does it actually mean though? No one knows the details but let's make some educated assumptions based on what we know. Trade deals are negotiated using a formula that is based on the size of the respective economies. So lets say for simplicity that economy A was 100% larger than economy B then the trade deal would be reflected 100% in favour of economy A. So as part of the EU, the UK was coming into trade negotiations say with an 90% leverage over New Zealand, but outside of the EU, that leverage is 60%. How can the UK possibly get a better trade deal than it has today with less leverage? Is there some magical formula that Liam Fox sprinkles on documents and on the floor in front of people and suddenly they say.... "Ah... but of course, you are British." I am fairly sure that there are a number of countries that see the Uk's exit from the EU as being a way of balancing out whatr they see as unfavourable terms because the UK's strength of position in the EU. So us leaving the EU weakens the EU's negotiating powers as well? Well acorrding to the Chancellor of the exchequer is weakened the UK growth this year
We're still in positive growth territory though aren't we. Last year during the EU referendum campaign the project fear remain scaremongers said a vote to leave would lead to a recession in the UK in 2017. It hasn't happened and there has been no recession.
Are you blinkered....were having the lowest growth since 2012 and the Tory Chancellor Phillip Hammond has put it all at the uncertainty over Brexit....wake up and get your head out your ass
It's you who has your head up your arse although it's no surprise as you support a team with Arse in the name, up the Arsenal.
The IMF released its forecast for the UK economy on Monday and the IMF said the UK economy will grow by 1.7% this year. Where is the recession that the remain campaign Project Fear scaremongers forecast for 2017 if the country voted Leave? It hasn't happened like much of the remain campaign propaganda that recession forecast was bullshit.
I quote
The International Monetary Fund has downgraded its forecast for Britain’s economy, describing its recent performance as “tepid”.
In a summer update to its twice yearly forecasts, the fund said the UK economy was slowing and likely to grow only 1.7 per cent this year, down 0.3 percentage points from its forecast in April.
https://www.ft.com/content/5ebf7170-703d-11e7-aca6-c6bd07df1a3c
Where is the recession that the IMF and the Remain campaign forecast last year then? It hasn't happened the UK economy is still growing.
Please provide links to your accusations
FFS have you been living in a cave for the last year?
This is common knowledge to anyone who took an ounce of interest in the referendum campaigns and is easily checked on Google. "So Check it on google and send the links to them ? | |||
| |||
"As Centaur is well aware the prediction of a recession was based on Camerons pledge to trigger A50 the day after the refendum. When he didnt the recession didnt happen. Considering its over a year later and the Tories still havent come to grips with Brexit imagine the state of affairs if there were only 6 months left to negotiate so that everything could be ratified and implemented by the brexit date. Centaurs so desperate for positive spin hes clutching at straws like downgraded growth figures and stories of situations that didnt happen." Stories and situations that didn't happen? Are you saying that the IMF and the Remain campaign never predicted recession now then? The prediction of recession was in the event the country voted to Leave, nothing to do with article 50. | |||
"As Centaur is well aware the prediction of a recession was based on Camerons pledge to trigger A50 the day after the refendum. When he didnt the recession didnt happen. Considering its over a year later and the Tories still havent come to grips with Brexit imagine the state of affairs if there were only 6 months left to negotiate so that everything could be ratified and implemented by the brexit date. Centaurs so desperate for positive spin hes clutching at straws like downgraded growth figures and stories of situations that didnt happen. Stories and situations that didn't happen? Are you saying that the IMF and the Remain campaign never predicted recession now then? The prediction of recession was in the event the country voted to Leave, nothing to do with article 50. " Article 50 had nothing to do with the deciding to leave? Might wanna read up on what Article 50 is all about.
Cameron said all along that it would be triggered the day after the election,of course that changed the economic outlook. You'd have to be an idiot not to think that things would be different if A50 was triggered the next day,next year or next decade. The timing was massively important. | |||
"As Centaur is well aware the prediction of a recession was based on Camerons pledge to trigger A50 the day after the refendum. When he didnt the recession didnt happen. Considering its over a year later and the Tories still havent come to grips with Brexit imagine the state of affairs if there were only 6 months left to negotiate so that everything could be ratified and implemented by the brexit date. Centaurs so desperate for positive spin hes clutching at straws like downgraded growth figures and stories of situations that didnt happen. Stories and situations that didn't happen? Are you saying that the IMF and the Remain campaign never predicted recession now then? The prediction of recession was in the event the country voted to Leave, nothing to do with article 50. Article 50 had nothing to do with the deciding to leave? Might wanna read up on what Article 50 is all about.
Cameron said all along that it would be triggered the day after the election,of course that changed the economic outlook. You'd have to be an idiot not to think that things would be different if A50 was triggered the next day,next year or next decade. The timing was massively important."That is right, brexitors are deluded to think it will be ok lol. | |||
"As Centaur is well aware the prediction of a recession was based on Camerons pledge to trigger A50 the day after the refendum. When he didnt the recession didnt happen. Considering its over a year later and the Tories still havent come to grips with Brexit imagine the state of affairs if there were only 6 months left to negotiate so that everything could be ratified and implemented by the brexit date. Centaurs so desperate for positive spin hes clutching at straws like downgraded growth figures and stories of situations that didnt happen. Stories and situations that didn't happen? Are you saying that the IMF and the Remain campaign never predicted recession now then? The prediction of recession was in the event the country voted to Leave, nothing to do with article 50. Article 50 had nothing to do with the deciding to leave? Might wanna read up on what Article 50 is all about.
Cameron said all along that it would be triggered the day after the election,of course that changed the economic outlook. You'd have to be an idiot not to think that things would be different if A50 was triggered the next day,next year or next decade. The timing was massively important."The prediction of recession was based solely on a vote to leave. There was nothing added to the prediction about article 50. If it helps you sleep at night to try and add it in there when it never was the case originally please do continue with your falsehoods and lies but anyone with half a brain who took an ounce of interest in the referendum campaign knows what was said. Maybe it wasn't that well reported over in Rep of Ireland so understandable you don't seem to be in full knowledge of the facts. I suggest you educate yourself before making comments off the cuff and making yourself look foolish in future. | |||
"As Centaur is well aware the prediction of a recession was based on Camerons pledge to trigger A50 the day after the refendum. When he didnt the recession didnt happen. Considering its over a year later and the Tories still havent come to grips with Brexit imagine the state of affairs if there were only 6 months left to negotiate so that everything could be ratified and implemented by the brexit date. Centaurs so desperate for positive spin hes clutching at straws like downgraded growth figures and stories of situations that didnt happen. Stories and situations that didn't happen? Are you saying that the IMF and the Remain campaign never predicted recession now then? The prediction of recession was in the event the country voted to Leave, nothing to do with article 50. Article 50 had nothing to do with the deciding to leave? Might wanna read up on what Article 50 is all about.
Cameron said all along that it would be triggered the day after the election,of course that changed the economic outlook. You'd have to be an idiot not to think that things would be different if A50 was triggered the next day,next year or next decade. The timing was massively important.
The prediction of recession was based solely on a vote to leave. There was nothing added to the prediction about article 50. If it helps you sleep at night to try and add it in there when it never was the case originally please do continue with your falsehoods and lies but anyone with half a brain who took an ounce of interest in the referendum campaign knows what was said. Maybe it wasn't that well reported over in Rep of Ireland so understandable you don't seem to be in full knowledge of the facts. I suggest you educate yourself before making comments off the cuff and making yourself look foolish in future. "This is based on the interview he did with Phillip Hammond Ed Conway Economics Editor Try, for a moment, to put yourself in Philip Hammond's shoes. The economy is growing at an anaemic rate - 0.2% in the first quarter and 0.3% in the second. That's less than half the rate one might previously have considered normal. :: Sluggish growth continues for economy That weak growth, as the Chancellor told me, is partly down to Brexit - the nervousness faced by businesses and consumers, unsure of our future relationship with the EU and unwilling to invest as much as they would have done. And yet, despite wanting to tell businesses that they will have a transition period - something to ease the shift from being inside to being outside the EU - he simply can't. In his words, he "can't give a cast iron guarantee" - because Britain has yet to agree to a transition with its European counterparts. It is an invidious situation. On the bright side, the UK economy is not mired in the recession some economists feared after the referendum. A waitress Image: The second quarter performance was underpinned by the services sector But annual growth of less than 2%, which is what the IMF now expects for the UK, implies Britons feeling the pinch for many more months. Indeed, having been the industrialised world's fastest growing economy before the vote, it is now one of the weaker performers. And yet because government has been effectively paralysed by Brexit, and because the negotiations are only now creaking into action, there is little he can do to try to relieve that uncertainty. No wonder he told me that talks over the so-called "implementation period" should be the first thing on the agenda in Brussels. Still, it's a reminder of how much things have changed for UK economic policymaking in the past few months. Remember: Britain has plenty of challenges not related to Europe. Productivity is weak - real wages were squeezed well before one considers the post-vote period - and there are worries that the UK is punching below its weight on innovation and industrial policy. And yet because of the referendum - and then June's election - the Chancellor has little realistic prospect of imposing major reforms on the UK economy. He can't even guarantee the implementation period he and business want - despite having (eventually) persuaded his Brexiteer cabinet colleagues that it's necessary. A tough spot to be in. Then again, no one said this would be easy http://news.sky.com/story/not-much-chancellor-can-do-about-brexit-uncertainty-10962560 | |||
"As Centaur is well aware the prediction of a recession was based on Camerons pledge to trigger A50 the day after the refendum. When he didnt the recession didnt happen. Considering its over a year later and the Tories still havent come to grips with Brexit imagine the state of affairs if there were only 6 months left to negotiate so that everything could be ratified and implemented by the brexit date. Centaurs so desperate for positive spin hes clutching at straws like downgraded growth figures and stories of situations that didnt happen. Stories and situations that didn't happen? Are you saying that the IMF and the Remain campaign never predicted recession now then? The prediction of recession was in the event the country voted to Leave, nothing to do with article 50. Article 50 had nothing to do with the deciding to leave? Might wanna read up on what Article 50 is all about.
Cameron said all along that it would be triggered the day after the election,of course that changed the economic outlook. You'd have to be an idiot not to think that things would be different if A50 was triggered the next day,next year or next decade. The timing was massively important.
The prediction of recession was based solely on a vote to leave. There was nothing added to the prediction about article 50. If it helps you sleep at night to try and add it in there when it never was the case originally please do continue with your falsehoods and lies but anyone with half a brain who took an ounce of interest in the referendum campaign knows what was said. Maybe it wasn't that well reported over in Rep of Ireland so understandable you don't seem to be in full knowledge of the facts. I suggest you educate yourself before making comments off the cuff and making yourself look foolish in future. "So the actual legal triggering of Brexit has nothing to do with Brexit's impacts? Ha. Flawless logic as always I see. | |||
"As Centaur is well aware the prediction of a recession was based on Camerons pledge to trigger A50 the day after the refendum. When he didnt the recession didnt happen. Considering its over a year later and the Tories still havent come to grips with Brexit imagine the state of affairs if there were only 6 months left to negotiate so that everything could be ratified and implemented by the brexit date. Centaurs so desperate for positive spin hes clutching at straws like downgraded growth figures and stories of situations that didnt happen. Stories and situations that didn't happen? Are you saying that the IMF and the Remain campaign never predicted recession now then? The prediction of recession was in the event the country voted to Leave, nothing to do with article 50. Article 50 had nothing to do with the deciding to leave? Might wanna read up on what Article 50 is all about.
Cameron said all along that it would be triggered the day after the election,of course that changed the economic outlook. You'd have to be an idiot not to think that things would be different if A50 was triggered the next day,next year or next decade. The timing was massively important.
The prediction of recession was based solely on a vote to leave. There was nothing added to the prediction about article 50. If it helps you sleep at night to try and add it in there when it never was the case originally please do continue with your falsehoods and lies but anyone with half a brain who took an ounce of interest in the referendum campaign knows what was said. Maybe it wasn't that well reported over in Rep of Ireland so understandable you don't seem to be in full knowledge of the facts. I suggest you educate yourself before making comments off the cuff and making yourself look foolish in future.
So the actual legal triggering of Brexit has nothing to do with Brexit's impacts?
Ha. Flawless logic as always I see.
"It was the remain campaigns prediction and how they worded it. So if anyone's logic is flawed surely it was the remain campaign that is who you are aiming criticism at with your comment. | |||
"As Centaur is well aware the prediction of a recession was based on Camerons pledge to trigger A50 the day after the refendum. When he didnt the recession didnt happen. Considering its over a year later and the Tories still havent come to grips with Brexit imagine the state of affairs if there were only 6 months left to negotiate so that everything could be ratified and implemented by the brexit date. Centaurs so desperate for positive spin hes clutching at straws like downgraded growth figures and stories of situations that didnt happen. Stories and situations that didn't happen? Are you saying that the IMF and the Remain campaign never predicted recession now then? The prediction of recession was in the event the country voted to Leave, nothing to do with article 50. Article 50 had nothing to do with the deciding to leave? Might wanna read up on what Article 50 is all about.
Cameron said all along that it would be triggered the day after the election,of course that changed the economic outlook. You'd have to be an idiot not to think that things would be different if A50 was triggered the next day,next year or next decade. The timing was massively important.
The prediction of recession was based solely on a vote to leave. There was nothing added to the prediction about article 50. If it helps you sleep at night to try and add it in there when it never was the case originally please do continue with your falsehoods and lies but anyone with half a brain who took an ounce of interest in the referendum campaign knows what was said. Maybe it wasn't that well reported over in Rep of Ireland so understandable you don't seem to be in full knowledge of the facts. I suggest you educate yourself before making comments off the cuff and making yourself look foolish in future.
So the actual legal triggering of Brexit has nothing to do with Brexit's impacts?
Ha. Flawless logic as always I see.
"I wonder if he even took those rose coloured glasses off to even read what i copied for him further up this thread | |||
"As Centaur is well aware the prediction of a recession was based on Camerons pledge to trigger A50 the day after the refendum. When he didnt the recession didnt happen. Considering its over a year later and the Tories still havent come to grips with Brexit imagine the state of affairs if there were only 6 months left to negotiate so that everything could be ratified and implemented by the brexit date. Centaurs so desperate for positive spin hes clutching at straws like downgraded growth figures and stories of situations that didnt happen. Stories and situations that didn't happen? Are you saying that the IMF and the Remain campaign never predicted recession now then? The prediction of recession was in the event the country voted to Leave, nothing to do with article 50. Article 50 had nothing to do with the deciding to leave? Might wanna read up on what Article 50 is all about.
Cameron said all along that it would be triggered the day after the election,of course that changed the economic outlook. You'd have to be an idiot not to think that things would be different if A50 was triggered the next day,next year or next decade. The timing was massively important.
The prediction of recession was based solely on a vote to leave. There was nothing added to the prediction about article 50. If it helps you sleep at night to try and add it in there when it never was the case originally please do continue with your falsehoods and lies but anyone with half a brain who took an ounce of interest in the referendum campaign knows what was said. Maybe it wasn't that well reported over in Rep of Ireland so understandable you don't seem to be in full knowledge of the facts. I suggest you educate yourself before making comments off the cuff and making yourself look foolish in future.
So the actual legal triggering of Brexit has nothing to do with Brexit's impacts?
Ha. Flawless logic as always I see.
I wonder if he even took those rose coloured glasses off to even read what i copied for him further up this thread "I suspect he tries to read but that certain words "trigger" the frothing and drivvle. Or maybe it's just Brexit tourrets? | |||
"So nice to read somebody with a positive view and informed information here.
Or can use the copy and paste function."Turkeys are still happy just before Christmas | |||
