Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Metryll View Post

    No "official EU historical revision" there. EU stated that May proposal was the best she could got before no deal. It was about the proposal against which UK Parliement voted no. Taking this declaration out of context and claiming that it relate to Johnson position is simply meaningless...
    Eh? That is just babble. Not unusual for you though ...

    "Another issue for Johnson will be domestic politics. May’s deal provided for an “association agreement” with deals on security and counter-terrorism as well as as science and education. Would Johnson abandon these just to get a Canada deal?"
    Sort of proves what I claimed. Agreements between the UK and EU on education, security and counter-terrorism etc are mutually beneficial and barely contentious. That the EU wants to bundle these into a 'package' that still allows the EU the power significant interference and oversight into UK matters is petty and churlish.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by Gooner View Post
    The EU are not covering themselves in glory after they seek to backtrack on the Canadian style deal
    When, where and how did the EU offer CETA style deal? Canada style deal was only noted in the famous stair slide (for example) that it remained something which could still be achieved despite of the UK's red lines - not that it would have been available without a cost, or just be a pick-n-choose. So what backtracking? Because for that to happen the offer would have needed to have been made in the first place.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johan Banér
    replied
    It's in a way development from the original 2016-ish idea that the German auto industry would give the UK everything it wanted in negotiations – yet in a way just more of the same from where that kind of idea came from.

    Leave a comment:


  • Metryll
    replied
    Originally posted by Gooner View Post

    Thank you for passing on the official EU historical revision.

    I trust you won't be looking too hard to find where the EU said a Canada type deal would require regulatory alignment and EU supervision of the 'level playing field'.
    No "official EU historical revision" there. EU stated that May proposal was the best she could got before no deal. It was about the proposal against which UK Parliement voted no. Taking this declaration out of context and claiming that it relate to Johnson position is simply meaningless...

    "Another issue for Johnson will be domestic politics. May’s deal provided for an “association agreement” with deals on security and counter-terrorism as well as as science and education. Would Johnson abandon these just to get a Canada deal?"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...by-end-of-2020

    More a case of expecting the EU to grow out of its pettiness and churlishness over the UKs decision to leave.

    Still I think the UK is more and more coming to terms with the idea that the best exit is the WTO one. With that comes the realisation that they'll be as many opportunities for business as there will be penalties.
    You don't think, you believe. This is why we have to correct your claiming so often over there...

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
    The EU has consistently said that a "Canada-style" deal with the UK would work differently from one with Canada, due to the proximity of the UK and the volume of trade.
    Thank you for passing on the official EU historical revision.

    I trust you won't be looking too hard to find where the EU said a Canada type deal would require regulatory alignment and EU supervision of the 'level playing field'.

    Bit late to wake up and smell the roses only now...
    More a case of expecting the EU to grow out of its pettiness and churlishness over the UKs decision to leave.

    Still I think the UK is more and more coming to terms with the idea that the best exit is the WTO one. With that comes the realisation that they'll be as many opportunities for business as there will be penalties.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post

    And as also previously pointed out CETA has taken years to negotiate and parts of it are still provisional. A one year and done deal seems rather optimistic.

    Yes, but the UK and the EU would be approaching any CETA type deal from the opposite direction - what tariffs and quotas and obstacles to impose, not get rid of.

    Leave a comment:


  • CarpeDiem
    replied
    Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
    The EU has consistently said that a "Canada-style" deal with the UK would work differently from one with Canada, due to the proximity of the UK and the volume of trade.

    Bit late to wake up and smell the roses only now...
    And as also previously pointed out CETA has taken years to negotiate and parts of it are still provisional. A one year and done deal seems rather optimistic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johan Banér
    replied
    The EU has consistently said that a "Canada-style" deal with the UK would work differently from one with Canada, due to the proximity of the UK and the volume of trade.

    Bit late to wake up and smell the roses only now...

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    A correct graph

    EROCKB9WoAAibxS?format=png&name=small.png

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    The EU are not covering themselves in glory after they seek to backtrack on the Canadian style deal

    https://order-order.com/2020/02/20/e...-brexit-graph/

    ERJCPxKXkAARRRr.jpeg?fit=1261%2C691&ssl=1.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Interesting graphic. So the much feares impact of WTO tariffs on the UK will be a massive £325 quid a year per household. BFD

    https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/eu-impo...ential-tariffs



    £325 a year is merely a modest rise in the interest rate or a small spike in oil prices.
    But this is with the benefit that that money ends up as lovely tax for the Government. Who can then do intelligent things with it - like cutting taxes on UK businesses which should lower costs of UK goods ...

    Leave a comment:


  • E.D. Morel
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post
    Of course the benefit of lower costs of production benefit shareholders as well as consumers. But shareholders are people too. Millions of people own shares either directly or through their pensions.
    In my business we lower the cost of production by investing in technology which allows us to increase output per unit labour cost. That means we can upskill through training, improve processes and thereby increase wages while increasing margin and profit. If costs are reduced by squeezing margin rather than increasing productivity then there no real net wealth creation but rather a redistribution of that existing wealth.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post
    But shareholders are people too..
    Not necessary *British* people though.

    One should take care to distinguish between private, individual and national "profit" in any macro-economic operation like Brexit,

    rarely do they follow national borders these days…..

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post
    No. Lower costs of production mean more goods and services can be produced with the same resources. Making us richer.
    It is not quite that simplistic. Reduced prices - especially if caused by cheap imports - does not translate into reduced production costs of equivalent domestic products. It only means that you will be losing your domestic industries and production and replacing those with imports. While that may reduce the costs it will not be a virtual circle but rather of the opposite type. With less production, and more unemployment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post


    Thank you. I am aware how economic theory works having studied and now teaching courses in business principles and economic theory at a post secondary level (my escape from the corporate world).

    It's important to note the world "can" in the phrase "can lower prices". Can not will.

    My experience has shown me that reality differs quite a lot from theory.

    As I mentioned previously, price cuts don't necessarily get passed on to the end consumer. Frequently savings go to increased dividends to shareholders. It is the shareholder who decides the board's renumeration and tenure. They tend to hold more sway. Trickle down stops at shareholder level.

    Then let's look at co-operative retailing or to be blunt price fixing.
    Ever notice how all gas stations from whatever company sell gas for basically the same price. And tend to raise or lower their prices at the same time. You'd think that a wily competitor would lower the prices to corner the market. However there is an understanding this is not going to happen and it ndoesn't. Other industries operate at the same level. Here in Canada we had an issue with bread price fixing at national grocery stores.

    Then we have the category killer businees (Amazon/Walmart) who comes in with lower prices, then once the dust is settled, sets their own prices for customer/retailer in a market with drastically reduced competition. Look at the case study of Vlasic pickles and their dealing with Walmart if you want to see how that business model works. Being a vendor for Walmart is a devil's deal for a manufacturer.

    Finally let me use the examples of new cars.
    Has the cost of new cars dropped substanially over the last decade?
    Sure there's new technology but there's also been hugh cost savings in labour, manufacturing, material, automation, outsourcing and offshoring.
    So has there been a drastic drop in car prices?
    If not where is the extra money going? Hint: shareholders and to make up for the lost profit years of the last recession. Not the consumer.

    Theory is well and good but it's best to look how theory functions in actual case studies.
    Trickle down doesn't work because it ignores some basic aspects of human nature.

    Good luck though if that's what you're relying on to make things run smoothly.
    You will definitely need it.
    There have been massive drops in the real costs of technological products such as computers, TVs etc. All passed to consumers.
    Even car prices tend to go up at less then the average rate of inflation.
    In the U.K. there are often significant differences in petrol prices that reflect supply and demand. E.g prices at motorway service stations are significantly more than at Sainsbury's. However the price at Tesco will be the same as Sainsbury's because that's how the market works. If you are selling an identical product then people aren't going to pay you more than your competitor.

    Of course the benefit of lower costs of production benefit shareholders as well as consumers. But shareholders are people too. Millions of people own shares either directly or through their pensions.
    Last edited by Surrey; 20 Feb 20, 12:45.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X