Brexit Britain unable to afford basic public services

Whereas Remainers voted the same way as George Osborne and Tony Blair...

Merely being able to negotiate independent trade deals is enough of a benefit for me. We've been out for under 3 years, it's incredibly early days yet.

Inflation is a global issue and Europe is pretty much the epicentre.

You can't blame every bad thing in life on Brexit, as I said before it just makes you look unhinged.

7.5 years since the ballot but the rules of article 50 etc. meant that no formal trade negotiations etc could take place until we were actually out. You can't really condemn the lack of progress made during years when we were prevented from making any.

Rich_cb wrote:

You can't blame every bad thing in life on Brexit, as I said before it just makes you look unhinged.

Unlike spending years on end coming on to a cycling website to go on and on and on about Brexit and its supposed advantages, leaving what must by now be many thousands of comments and hundreds of thousands of words, not to mention the graphs (never forget the graphs), that is of course not obsessive or unhinged at all.

Did I start this forum post?

Did I drag up a discussion from 4 months ago and lie about it?

From today's discussion it has become apparent that you're largely incapable of understanding a basic graph so I can see how the use of such complex devices might irk you somewhat.

Take it up with Rendel.

David9694 wrote:

Your friendly reminder that we are in the Tea Shop section of the aforesaid cycling website. 

Which is fair enough in this instance but RCB has a long and tedious history of leaping on any cycling article which mentions Brexit in the most tangential way, e.g. someone saying they're having trouble sourcing parts from Europe, and proceeding to pebbledash the pages with dozens and dozens of graph-laden posts supposedly proving how marvellous Brexit is. Then calling people liars when they share his own words on the subject...never has the phrase "you won, get over it" been more applicable.

Apologise for your lie Rendel and you might just about save some face from this debacle.

A sentence that contains the words 'if it gets over the line' can in no way be considered to be 'in a way that expresses little doubt'. Almost every relevant post on that previous thread expressed doubt in one way or another.

The little persona you've created on this site has both a photographic memory and a precise command of the English language. That unfortunately leaves no explanation for the discrepancy other than dishonesty.

It's amusing you feign outrage at the continued discussions of Brexit yet you engaged with me on the topic...

Another example of your duplicity and dishonesty?

Rich_cb wrote:

Merely being able to negotiate independent trade deals is enough of a benefit for me. We've been out for under 3 years, it's incredibly early days yet.

But what's the point of being able to do this if our negotiating strength is a fraction of the EU's, resulting in the pathetic deals (Japan - worse than EU deal and UK exports actually FELL in the first year of implementation, CTTP - 0.08% increase in GDP after 20 years - basically a rounding error, Australia laughing all the way to the back as the UK throws its own farmers under the bus etc) that the Tories have signed up for so far? They're just performative nonsense to distract the gullible from the massive failure that Brexit has been.

It's like saying that leaving a trades union and being able to negotiate your own pay rises is "enough of a benefit for me" and completely ignoring that the pay rise you can "negotiate" on your own is fraction of what a TU can get for you.

I'm frankly baffled that you seem unable to grasp this simple point.

Has the EU been able to secure a trade deal with the US or India?

If they can't secure those deals then what use is their supposed 'negotiating strength'?

The EU is a diverse collection of economies each of which holds a veto over trade deals, it's far easier to negotiate trade deals with a much narrower list of priorities than trying to balance the interests of 27 competing countries.

Quote from fullfact re UK-Japan deal:
"Ultimately, while it seems like additional provisions in the UK’s deal will have little impact, trade experts also do not expect the new deal to be worse than the old one."

Rich_cb wrote:

Has the EU been able to secure a trade deal with the US or India? If they can't secure those deals then what use is their supposed 'negotiating strength'?

No they haven't, and so what? Both are highly protectionist and are wary of opening up their markets, and that is their perogative. As some are wearily consistent in pointing out the US is the biggest single country trade partner of the U.K. even without an FTA in place. Indeed the Austraila -USA FTA has so far looked to have benefited the US more than Australia so FTA's are not the panacea some seem to be selling them as. The EU certainly won't be signing anything that doesn't benefit its members. The same may not be said for the U.K. so far when looking at the deal that was signed with Australia. 
 

The idea that protectionism actually protects anybody but a tiny minority of vested interests has long been debunked.

Free trade makes a country richer and improves the prosperity of its citizens.

The EU has attempted and, so far, failed to secure FTAs with India and the USA. The EU has secured an FTA with Japan but the UK has also agreed a near identical agreement post Brexit.

The point being that the 'negotiating strength' of the EU doesn't seem to actually translate into big differences when dealing with larger economies.

I think the Australia FTA needs to be seen in the context of the CPTPP and AUSUK deals, trade is just one aspect, geopolitics is equally as important.

Rich_cb wrote:

The idea that protectionism actually protects anybody but a tiny minority of vested interests has long been debunked. Free trade makes a country richer and improves the prosperity of its citizens. The EU has attempted and, so far, failed to secure FTAs with India and the USA. The EU has secured an FTA with Japan but the UK has also agreed a near identical agreement post Brexit. The point being that the 'negotiating strength' of the EU doesn't seem to actually translate into big differences when dealing with larger economies. I think the Australia FTA needs to be seen in the context of the CPTPP and AUSUK deals, trade is just one aspect, geopolitics is equally as important.

Just as well the EU is the biggest free trade area in the world and

" ..According to an analysis of data from the WTO the EU-27 countries are – by some margin – the countries with the most trade agreements in the world"

And near identical is not the same as identical so what are the differences and who do they benefit? I don't know but it's all very well saying near identical when the difference may be quite key, no? 

Of course CPTPP was geopolitical as the U.K. already has trade deals with the majority of the members. The Aus deal was by and large not about boosting trade, Government figures showing the economic benefit as negligible. 
 

RDaneel wrote:

And near identical is not the same as identical so what are the differences and who do they benefit? I don't know but it's all very well saying near identical when the difference may be quite key, no?

One difference is that the EU-Japan agreement has 25 Tariff Rate Quotas relating to "certain goods to be imported at a reduced rate of duty, up to a specified quantity limit." The UK "will retain access to 10 of those 25 EU TRQs in relation to any surplus quota volume left unused by the EU in any given year." (Both quotes from Parliamentary International Trade Committee). So we lost more than 50% of our privileged tariff reductions and only get to use those left if the EU doesn't want them. I'm sure Rich will be along shortly to explain that by "near identical" he didn't, obviously, mean "nearly identical" and that anyone who says he did is a liar...

Rendel the liar chips in once more.
Here's the fullfact page I referred to earlier.
https://fullfact.org/economy/japan-eu-deal-thornberry/

"Ultimately, while it seems like additional provisions in the UK’s deal will have little impact, trade experts also do not expect the new deal to be worse than the old one."

I think my description was pretty accurate.

You really are making a bit of a turkey of yourself this Christmas. It may suit your strange need to be right at all costs (classic sign of narcissistic personality disorder by the way) to call people who don't agree with you liars but I'm afraid people aren't fooled by that, as the total lack of support for your rantings proves. How about instead of calling me a liar you address the substantive point raised not by me but by the Parliamentary International Trade Committee that in switching from the EU to the UK trade deal with Japan we have lost access to 15/25 Tariff Rate Quota reduced duty rates and only get to use the remaining ten if they're not filled by the EU? No ranting, no name calling, just address the substantive facts.

Oh, by the way, you left this out of your quotes from the FullFact article:

"Ms Thornberry says that government analysis shows that the old deal was projected to increase UK GDP by £2.6 billion, but the new deal is only projected to increase UK GDP by £1.5 billion over the same period. This is correct, as noted by Full Fact back in September."

You're the chap who likes to accuse others of cherry-picking, right?

Seriously Rendel.

You're going to accuse me of cherry picking then do exactly that. The fullfact link goes in to detail about why those two figures can't be directly compared. You know that. You chose to try and mislead people. Again.

It's patently clear that you are in the wrong with your 'confidently assure' accusation. For that terminology to be correct there must have been 'little doubt' in my postings about the FTA. That's objectively not the case.

It's dishonest to try and insinuate otherwise but I can see why it may suit your strange need to be right at all costs.

2 examples of blatant deceit in short succession. How much else of what you post on this website is simply lies Rendel?

There's no need for us to debate what's written on the fullfact site, it's pretty clear. The UK does indeed have reduced quota access in some areas but gets improved access for services. Overall fullfact concludes there is no overall significant difference. As I said.

Hilarious. Government signs up to a trade deal with Japan under the aegis of the EU and the Department for International Trade says it'll be worth up to £3bn. UK leaves the EU and signs a trade deal with Japan worth over £1bn less and says oh we were just making up the earlier figures. Rich buys this lock, stock and fraudulent barrel.

Feel free to keep calling me a liar old son, it simply shows up the paucity of your arguments. The lack of support you get shows just what notice people take of your spluttering faux indignation.

That isn't my conclusion Rendel.

It's the conclusion of independent trade experts interviewed by an independent fact checking website.

You tried to mislead people and got caught out. Again. You're now doubling down on your deceit. Again.

You know I expressed doubt about the India FTA multiple times. You chose to lie about it.

You knew fullfact cautioned against directly comparing those figures. You chose to lie about it.

If you lie about things that can easily be checked and then continue to lie even when confronted with the evidence then what else are you lying about?

How much of what you post on this site is the product of your fevered imagination?

According to quoted trade experts on fullfact the UK-Japan deal is equivalent to the EU deal. Neither better nor worse.

The differences are therefore unlikely to be in major areas and are probably mostly cosmetic.

While the Aus-UK FTA and CPTPP will have minimal economic impact the AUKUS deal will see billions of pounds invested in the UK and a lot of that will come directly from Australia.

The EU has a lot of trade agreements but is also simultaneously very protectionist, especially of food and agriculture. The best example is the Appellation d'Origine and its derivatives which simply push up prices for consumers and deliver no discernible benefit to anyone but the producers.

Rich_cb wrote:

The differences are therefore unlikely to be in major areas and are probably mostly cosmetic........

The EU has a lot of trade agreements but is also simultaneously very protectionist, especially of food and agriculture. The best example is the Appellation d'Origine and its derivatives which simply push up prices for consumers and deliver no discernible benefit to anyone but the producers.

They just fancied changing things for mainly cosmetic reasons, and only in the minor areas?  I'm no trade expert but I'd be very doubtful that changes from the EU rollover would be changed for cosmetic reasons only. 
 

Appellation d'Origine, a number of other countries use a similar system,

"The US for example has the American Viticultural Areasalso which follows the model set by the French AOC"

It's merely a different but equally valid way of labelling Wine as per the protected designation system for such things as Parmesan cheese,  Camembert etc. Such a system also seems to have been put in place by the U.K. since we left the EU scheme, protecting domestic U.K. suppliers, how very dare they! 

The Appellation stuff is pure protectionism. The fact that the UK has gone along with it doesn't make it any less so.

I called the changes cosmetic because they don't create any meaningful difference. As concluded by fullfact.

By including minor improvements in access for services in the Japan deal they do set a template for future trade deals in which services (80% of our economy) are prioritised over goods.

Rich_cb wrote:

The Appellation stuff is pure protectionism. The fact that the UK has gone along with it doesn't make it any less so. I called the changes cosmetic because they don't create any meaningful difference. As concluded by fullfact. By including minor improvements in access for services in the Japan deal they do set a template for future trade deals in which services (80% of our economy) are prioritised over goods.

So we had a true Brexiteer Government and even they continued with these protections, might that tell you something? We've also continued applying protectionist tariffs and regulations, is that not insightful of a certain agreement of their place in world trade? Do you want to remove ALL protections and just let the "market" decide how it does business. Get Governments out of the way of businesses doing business! What could possibly go wrong? 
 

So the changes aren't meaningful but they do provide a meaningful basis for future trade agreements.  Therefore one could argue they aren't just cosmetic changes but actually quite important when looked at in terms of all the future trade deals the U.K. will do. Got it! 

Some countries do go down the tariff free route.

Singapore has gone the furthest and happens to be one of the richest countries in the world per capita.

Protectionism holds back trade. Trade makes a country wealthy.

Rich_cb wrote:

Some countries do go down the tariff free route. Singapore has gone the furthest and happens to be one of the richest countries in the world per capita. Protectionism holds back trade. Trade makes a country wealthy.

From reading some reports Singapore is heavily reliant on imports and re-exports so it may not be a suprise they went down the route of no tariffs. We are not Geographically or economically like Singapore.
What you're advocating for then is the kind of free trade we enjoyed when we were in the EU where a company in Burnley could as easily sell their services/product to a customer in Bournemouth as in Berlin, Brescia or Bratislava? Along with the largest number of FTA's of any other country/entity allowing said company to also export easier to those partners. Sounds great, when do we join? 

The point is that no tariffs has helped make them incredibly wealthy. Free trade tends to do that.

If the EU were just a trade bloc I'd be in favour of membership but it is both a trade bloc and a political organisation.

Paying 10s of billions per year to a political organisation in order to secure marginally better trade terms doesn't seem like a great deal to me.

Rich_cb wrote:

Paying 10s of billions per year to a political organisation in order to secure marginally better trade terms doesn't seem like a great deal to me.

"10s" Office for National Statistics, 2018:

I believe £20bn a year gross liability meets the 'tens of' criterion.

A mere £11bn net you say, what an absolute bargain.

Shame we have to spend that on the NHS now.