Brexit: give me a positive effect... XI

[Stunsworth]

Nobody said we don’t have more to lose.

That we have more to lose does not mean the EU can afford to lose this 15%, or do you think they may choose to do so?

As I said there will still be trade, but losing say 50% of 45% is a much bigger hit that losing 50% of 15%.

 

[Brian]

Pitch in a market with unrestricted access to 28 countries, many of them already wealthy, most of the rest well on the way to becoming so. RENT £50.00
Pitch in a market with access to 3.5 countries, one of which was wealthy but is now ruled by a despotic government intent on bankruptcy, and the remaining discontented 2.5 countries also being similarly bankrupted and asset-stripped, so poorer than they should be and heading downhill. RENT £0 or, in view of recent performance, perhaps we need to offer incentives.

Close call where you are but you didn’t do your bit, my friend. The tories got a majority and here we are.

 

[Brian]

As I said there will still be trade, but losing say 50% of 45% is a much bigger hit that losing 50% of 15%.

I suspect people know we will be economically worse off than we might have been. What are you hoping to achieve by endlessly going on about it? Serious question.

 

[roman]

Are we going to charge the EU for their pitch in the UK? Neither side can afford not to trade.

It seems that we've decided we can afford not to trade, or is it that we pusued brexit at any cost and to hell with the consequences, leaving businesses to sort out a mess not of their making?

 

[Brian]

It seems that we've decided we can afford not to trade, or is it that we pusued brexit at any cost and to hell with the consequences, leaving businesses to sort out a mess not of their making?

roman,

How so? According to the article I linked earlier the UK has done many trade deals with many countries on the same terms as the EU. Who says we’ve decided not to trade? Trade was the point of the EEC before it turned into the EU.

 

[Colin Barron]

roman,

How so? According to the article I linked earlier the UK has done many trade deals with many countries on the same terms as the EU. Who says we’ve decided not to trade? Trade was the point of the EEC before it turned into the EU.

The days of low cost EEC trading are gone the only red bus offer was a trend towards full federal USE dictatorship, own money, own army and own Covid vaccine. We wish them well.

 

[Stunsworth]

I suspect people know we will be economically worse off than we might have been. What are you hoping to achieve by endlessly going on about it? Serious question.

Pointing out the bleeding obvious, that people were lied to. “Sunlit Uplands”, “Easiest Deal Ever”, “They Need Us More Than We Need Them”. That sort of thing.

 

[Brian]

Pointing out the bleeding obvious, that people were lied to. “Sunlit Uplands”, “Easiest Deal Ever”, “They Need Us More Than We Need Them”. That sort of thing.

Forever? Or is there an end date for this bleeding obvious? Is this an intense topic for you with people you know in person?

 

[eternumviti]

roman,

How so? According to the article I linked earlier the UK has done many trade deals with many countries on the same terms as the EU. Who says we’ve decided not to trade? Trade was the point of the EEC before it turned into the EU.

I think the EU was always the point of the EEC, they were just a bit shifty about it.

 

[stephen bennett]

So we have regained EU negotiated trade with 63 countries out of 70.

I thought this was a Brexit positive thread?

So trade with the rest of the world is not quite as good as before while trade with our biggest trading partner is significantly worse than before.

I know the Brexit mantra is now 'it's not as shi&T as the remain side said it might be', but Leave voters claiming this is a 'positive' is just another sign of desperation.

Stephen

 

[Colin Barron]

As I said there will still be trade, but losing say 50% of 45% is a much bigger hit that losing 50% of 15%.

When the covid magic money tree cash runs out, which will not take long and vaccines contain the virus, then thoughts will return to the 3% annual deficit rule.

 

[roman]

roman,

How so? According to the article I linked earlier the UK has done many trade deals with many countries on the same terms as the EU. Who says we’ve decided not to trade? Trade was the point of the EEC before it turned into the EU.

In the case of brexit we've created impediments to trade where there were none.

I can't think of a precedent for this. It's extraordinary and damaging and entirely self inflicted.

 

[ff1d1l]

When the covid magic money tree cash runs out, which will not take long and vaccines contain the virus, then thoughts will return to the 3% annual deficit rule.

Doesn't apply to brexit...nothing does...the brainwashed acolytes admit to no detrimentals.

 

[Brian]

So we have regained EU negotiated trade with 63 countries out of 70.

I thought this was a Brexit positive thread?

So trade with the rest of the world is not quite as good as before while trade with our biggest trading partner is significantly worse than before.

I know the Brexit mantra is now 'it's not as shi&T as he remain side said it might be', but Leave voters claiming this is a 'positive' is just another sign on desperation.

Stephen

I made the post so I guess this is another swipe in my direction.

Once again. That I am not in the minority of those who have zero respect for a democratic referendum result does not mean I voted leave. I suspect you know that but you have to throw it in there. Hope you feel better now.

Pointing out that doing trade deals with 63 out of 70 countries on identical terms as before is not posted as a positive of brexit. You know that too, so all a bit disingenuous. I recognise the importance of trade and the article is pointing out we are doing decent trade deals. That’s all it says. Most people will see this as a good thing.

Of course, overall you understand this thread is not about positives of brexit so I have to wonder why you saw fit to claim it is, but if you insist it should be I will point out there are many hundreds of posts in this thread that are nothing to do with positives of brexit made by your hard remainer friends that pass without such comment. The suggestion the thread is meant to be about positives of brexit does tend to crop up now and again usually as part of hard remainers rejecting any sign of good news. All a bit sad really.

Serious question. What is it going to take for you to move on?

 

[Brian]

In the case of brexit we've created impediments to trade where there were none.

I can't think of a precedent for this. It's extraordinary and damaging and entirely self inflicted.

Ok.

 

[ff1d1l]

More or Less to deal with some brexit figures this morning.

 

[kabayiri]

In the case of brexit we've created impediments to trade where there were none.

I can't think of a precedent for this. It's extraordinary and damaging and entirely self inflicted.

This is simply not true.

There are lots of precedents. Countries get trade embargos put on them due to their actions. The 10 year Iran/Iraq war was damaging to the economies of both.

Regardless, they still do it.

The USA is going to have to make some tough trade decisions with China in the coming years. It might prove harmful to the USA economy, but the alternative might be fuelling the rise of their biggest economic competitor.

 

[kabayiri]

...
Serious question. What is it going to take for you to move on?

I guess some people need a rejoin campaign which they can put their energy and commitment behind.
I'm not sure if that's going to come from the traditional main parties. Maybe Lib Dems, but they are not as strong as they were.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

This is simply not true.

There are lots of precedents. Countries get trade embargos put on them due to their actions. The 10 year Iran/Iraq war was damaging to the economies of both.

Regardless, they still do it.

The USA is going to have to make some tough trade decisions with China in the coming years. It might prove harmful to the USA economy, but the alternative might be fuelling the rise of their biggest economic competitor.

I’d argue there is a fundamental difference between having trade embargoes imposed from outside, and intentionally erecting barriers to trade.

 

[roman]

This is simply not true.

There are lots of precedents. Countries get trade embargos put on them due to their actions. The 10 year Iran/Iraq war was damaging to the economies of both.

Regardless, they still do it.

The USA is going to have to make some tough trade decisions with China in the coming years. It might prove harmful to the USA economy, but the alternative might be fuelling the rise of their biggest economic competitor.

Crikey, that's a bit of an escalation.

We are neither at war nor were we worried about the rise of European economies, in fact part of the plan is to help those which are poorer.