On the customs union, it's the inevitable consequence if we want to strike the most advantageous possible trade deals outside the EU. If we were to remain within the customs union with the EU, wouldn't that by definition affect the terms of any future trade deals we could strike with the likes of the US, China or India ?
Clearly, the May Government believes (or wants to believe) an independent UK fully removed from the EU can seek better trade deals than has so far been achieved as part of the EU.
Looking at Germany is cherry picking one part of a currency union. It would be like just looking at London. Germany's export strength is due to it benefitting from export weakness elsewhere in the Eurozone dragging diwn its exchange rate.
Why can't we cherry-pick? Do you aspire to Greek economic performance for the UK? What want of ambition!
Because Germany and Greece share an exchamge rate. We can't copy their model without being in a currency union with someone as weak as Greece, which is obviously a stupid idea.
If you think that's their model, we're beating Germany at their own game. The Pound has lost value against the Euro since its inception, from 1.40 in 1999 to 1.13 today.
Quite - if we had joined or join the Euro and the USofE project as you suggest we would be in a significantly worse position.
You think we couldn't survive with a strong currency? Don't you believe in Britain?
Brexit in Name Only -which I think has been shortened to Brino not Bino is, notwithstanding the cartoons, an effective slogan with sums up what Remoaners have been trying to do ever since the referendum result : subvert the will of the People by exiting the EU in theory but keeping us in practice totally under the control of a foreign superstate.
How could we be an independent country if we remained in the Single Market or Customs Union.
How can we be an independent country if our only land border cannot be a customs border?
On the customs union, it's the inevitable consequence if we want to strike the most advantageous possible trade deals outside the EU. If we were to remain within the customs union with the EU, wouldn't that by definition affect the terms of any future trade deals we could strike with the likes of the US, China or India ?
Clearly, the May Government believes (or wants to believe) an independent UK fully removed from the EU can seek better trade deals than has so far been achieved as part of the EU.
Looking at Germany is cherry picking one part of a currency union. It would be like just looking at London. Germany's export strength is due to it benefitting from export weakness elsewhere in the Eurozone dragging diwn its exchange rate.
Why can't we cherry-pick? Do you aspire to Greek economic performance for the UK? What want of ambition!
Because Germany and Greece share an exchamge rate. We can't copy their model without being in a currency union with someone as weak as Greece, which is obviously a stupid idea.
I don't think I agree with you that Germany's export success to China is down to a common currency with Greece, but let's go with the argument, it clearly isn't a stupid idea for Germany. The UK can still aim more to emulate Germany than to emulate Greece.
On the customs union, it's the inevitable consequence if we want to strike the most advantageous possible trade deals outside the EU. If we were to remain within the customs union with the EU, wouldn't that by definition affect the terms of any future trade deals we could strike with the likes of the US, China or India ?
Clearly, the May Government believes (or wants to believe) an independent UK fully removed from the EU can seek better trade deals than has so far been achieved as part of the EU.
Looking at Germany is cherry picking one part of a currency union. It would be like just looking at London. Germany's export strength is due to it benefitting from export weakness elsewhere in the Eurozone dragging diwn its exchange rate.
Why can't we cherry-pick? Do you aspire to Greek economic performance for the UK? What want of ambition!
Because Germany and Greece share an exchamge rate. We can't copy their model without being in a currency union with someone as weak as Greece, which is obviously a stupid idea.
If you think that's their model, we're beating Germany at their own game. The Pound has lost value against the Euro since its inception, from 1.40 in 1999 to 1.13 today.
That almost entirely reflects our devaluation during the 2008 crisis. Unlike the Germans, we weren't in a position to corral the EU to bailout our banks by proxy.
What larks. But can we be clear: is it a customers union that is now ruled out or the Customer Union? I ask because the indefinite-article version was perfectly acceptable to the PB Leavers only last week.
It doesn't matter. The PB Leavers have always been at war with the EU.
And they will continue to be. For me, one of the worst aspects of the EU is the way people could blame it for everything. Sometimes correctly, but often on no basis. Rather than sort things out, they could just point at the EU: "See, it's their fault."
I had hoped that the vote to leave would cure this disease. Sadly, it appears that leavers are always going to blame the EU, even after we leave. It'll always be *their* fault, even if it's nothing to do with them.
The EU provokes strong emotions amongst many in Britain.
Whilst meaningless/cosmetic to some (or meaningful, but welcome, to others), EU flags on numberplates, driving licences, public buildings, public projects, beaches and town signs were viewed as a creeping attack on British identity.
This isn't entirely without merit, as part of the EU federalisation project is to break down or qualify national identities within the context of a broader European one.
Looking at the twattery going on in Athens as to whether Macedonia is called Macedonia I am not sure the project is going to plan.
Brexit in Name Only -which I think has been shortened to Brino not Bino is, notwithstanding the cartoons, an effective slogan with sums up what Remoaners have been trying to do ever since the referendum result : subvert the will of the People by exiting the EU in theory but keeping us in practice totally under the control of a foreign superstate.
How could we be an independent country if we remained in the Single Market or Customs Union.
If we left the EU on the basis of Brino, then the latter would be the rallying cry for those democrats who wanted to appeal to voters that the referendum result had been betrayed. It would be like checking out of a hotel but still receive bills in the post for the room and not being allowed to check into another hotel.
Will there be a leadership challenge to May this week? Probably not. The Sun story of the government minister who was going to denounce May didnt happen.
There might well at some point be a vote of confidence triggered by 48 Mps, but I dont think most Tory MPs, even though they dont have confidence in May,would actually vote against her at the moment. They want to wait until Brexit is over.
"the will of the People" - that's rubbish, just over half the people, maybe. The people haven't 'spoken', they maybe mumbled a bit.
On the customs union, it's the inevitable consequence if we want to strike the most advantageous possible trade deals outside the EU. If we were to remain within the customs union with the EU, wouldn't that by definition affect the terms of any future trade deals we could strike with the likes of the US, China or India ?
Clearly, the May Government believes (or wants to believe) an independent UK fully removed from the EU can seek better trade deals than has so far been achieved as part of the EU.
Looking at Germany is cherry picking one part of a currency union. It would be like just looking at London. Germany's export strength is due to it benefitting from export weakness elsewhere in the Eurozone dragging diwn its exchange rate.
Why can't we cherry-pick? Do you aspire to Greek economic performance for the UK? What want of ambition!
Because Germany and Greece share an exchamge rate. We can't copy their model without being in a currency union with someone as weak as Greece, which is obviously a stupid idea.
If you think that's their model, we're beating Germany at their own game. The Pound has lost value against the Euro since its inception, from 1.40 in 1999 to 1.13 today.
That almost entirely reflects our devaluation during the 2008 crisis. Unlike the Germans, we weren't in a position to corral the EU to bailout our banks by proxy.
I thought we recovered by 2015 to 1.42, but something happened in 2016, not sure what, that saw the rate fall back to 2008 levels.
Brexit in Name Only -which I think has been shortened to Brino not Bino is, notwithstanding the cartoons, an effective slogan with sums up what Remoaners have been trying to do ever since the referendum result : subvert the will of the People by exiting the EU in theory but keeping us in practice totally under the control of a foreign superstate.
How could we be an independent country if we remained in the Single Market or Customs Union.
If we left the EU on the basis of Brino, then the latter would be the rallying cry for those democrats who wanted to appeal to voters that the referendum result had been betrayed. It would be like checking out of a hotel but still receive bills in the post for the room and not being allowed to check into another hotel.
Will there be a leadership challenge to May this week? Probably not. The Sun story of the government minister who was going to denounce May didnt happen.
There might well at some point be a vote of confidence triggered by 48 Mps, but I dont think most Tory MPs, even though they dont have confidence in May,would actually vote against her at the moment. They want to wait until Brexit is over.
The people never told us what their will was. They wanted to leave the EU. We will be doing that. Brineaux is just a conflation by Brexiters who are trying to double down on their ill-thought out strategy to trash the UK.
Brexit in Name Only -which I think has been shortened to Brino not Bino is, notwithstanding the cartoons, an effective slogan with sums up what Remoaners have been trying to do ever since the referendum result : subvert the will of the People by exiting the EU in theory but keeping us in practice totally under the control of a foreign superstate.
How could we be an independent country if we remained in the Single Market or Customs Union.
If we left the EU on the basis of Brino, then the latter would be the rallying cry for those democrats who wanted to appeal to voters that the referendum result had been betrayed. It would be like checking out of a hotel but still receive bills in the post for the room and not being allowed to check into another hotel.
Will there be a leadership challenge to May this week? Probably not. The Sun story of the government minister who was going to denounce May didnt happen.
There might well at some point be a vote of confidence triggered by 48 Mps, but I dont think most Tory MPs, even though they dont have confidence in May,would actually vote against her at the moment. They want to wait until Brexit is over.
"the will of the People" - that's rubbish, just over half the people, maybe. The people haven't 'spoken', they maybe mumbled a bit.
Just over half the people is a democratic majority. It was the biggest vote for change in British political history. You stand revealed as someone who doesnt believe in democracy -unless it goes your way.
But somehow, magically, not being in the Customs Union or the Single Market will make it much more difficult to export to the EU? It makes no sense whatsoever. We don't have trade deals with most of the rest of the world and yet we trade with them. Why will the EU be different?
Third Brexit thread in a row! BINO is the only form of Brexit that
That's clearly not true. Remainers have already attacked the transition soft Brexit for being far worse than EU membership, so clearly they would be unsatisfied with a "BINO" that is harder than EEA membership.
Citation required.
Go afits of leaving.
Any
Only if you purely look at economics. That’s what Remainers got wrong
Blimmin heck, make up your mind: will there be a Brexit bonus, or is the cost of Brexit a price worth paying?
I’ve always been consistent
A cost and it's worth it?
Absolutely fair enough. If the government were to be as honest, then we could at least get on with it.
An analogy is redeploying capital from a mature business to a new growth opportunity. There’s a short term opportunity cost (not an absolute cost) but long term we will be better off (assuming we execute effectively). When the cross over is I don’t know and it doesn’t matter - I tend to think on a multi-generational basis
Sadly for us, Charles, you know what happens in the long run.
Plus, on the more formal point, discounted to today, there is no point making a gain in XX years time if today's benefit is trivial.
I’ve worked with an investor who makes all there decisions based on an assumption that they will hold assets for eternity...
As for the long run, the individual is not important: we are all but links in a chain
The investor would not undertake an NPV-negative project, though, would he/she?
They have forgone NPV-positive projects (specifically this is the Diocese of London which refuses to sell freeholds inside the City)
That's fine. But they would not undertake an NPV-negative one.
That is what we are talking about here. A future benefit means nothing if today's value is negative. As they say, and as of course you know, when discussing discounting - you can't get to there from here.
Brexiteers believe it is NPV positive - the future upside offsets the expected lower growth from the EU market
On the customs union, it's the inevitable consequence if we want to strike the most advantageous possible trade deals outside the EU. If we were to remain within the customs union with the EU, wouldn't that by definition affect the terms of any future trade deals we could strike with the likes of the US, China or India ?
Clearly, the May Government believes (or wants to believe) an independent UK fully removed from the EU can seek better trade deals than has so far been achieved as part of the EU.
Looking at Germany is cherry picking one part of a currency union. It would be like just looking at London. Germany's export strength is due to it benefitting from export weakness elsewhere in the Eurozone dragging diwn its exchange rate.
Why can't we cherry-pick? Do you aspire to Greek economic performance for the UK? What want of ambition!
Because Germany and Greece share an exchamge rate. We can't copy their model without being in a currency union with someone as weak as Greece, which is obviously a stupid idea.
I don't think I agree with you that Germany's export success to China is down to a common currency with Greece, but let's go with the argument, it clearly isn't a stupid idea for Germany. The UK can still aim more to emulate Germany than to emulate Greece.
This seems obvious, but many Brexiteers seem to have an absolutely irrational inferiority complex about Germany. The irony is that Brexit itself is the Greek trap of their nightmares.
On the customs union, it's the inevitable consequence if we want to strike the most advantageous possible trade deals outside the EU. If we were to remain within the customs union with the EU, wouldn't that by definition affect the terms of any future trade deals we could strike with the likes of the US, China or India ?
Clearly, the May Government believes (or wants to believe) an independent UK fully removed from the EU can seek better trade deals than has so far been achieved as part of the EU.
This line always irritates because it is so facile. At the current stage of Chinese development they need machine tools and capital goods - areas that Germany specialises in. They don’t need as much of the higher value product/services that the UK is good at
It also exposes the much touted lie that if we were outside the EU we could do more trade with China, etc.
Hunger is a good motivator...
Except YOU will not go hungry, will you Charles?
So long as I keep my job i’ll be fine. If I lose it I have about 3-4 months salary stashed away but after that i’d get a little nervous. So I’m probably better positioned than most.
Blimmin heck, make up your mind: will there be a Brexit bonus, or is the cost of Brexit a price worth paying?
I’ve always been consistent
A cost and it's worth it?
Absolutely fair enough. If the government were to be as honest, then we could at least get on with it.
An analogy is redeploying capital from a mature business to a new growth opportunity. There’s a short term opportunity cost (not an absolute cost) but long term we will be better off (assuming we execute effectively). When the cross over is I don’t know and it doesn’t matter - I tend to think on a multi-generational basis
Sadly for us, Charles, you know what happens in the long run.
Plus, on the more formal point, discounted to today, there is no point making a gain in XX years time if today's benefit is trivial.
I’ve worked with an investor who makes all there decisions based on an assumption that they will hold assets for eternity...
As for the long run, the individual is not important: we are all but links in a chain
The investor would not undertake an NPV-negative project, though, would he/she?
They have forgone NPV-positive projects (specifically this is the Diocese of London which refuses to sell freeholds inside the City)
That's fine. But they would not undertake an NPV-negative one.
That is what we are talking about here. A future benefit means nothing if today's value is negative. As they say, and as of course you know, when discussing discounting - you can't get to there from here.
Brexiteers believe it is NPV positive - the future upside offsets the expected lower growth from the EU market
Steve Baker made it very clear that Leavers don't believe in any future projections. They're doing this because they want to, not because they have any evidence it's going to be good for Britain.
On the customs union ("a", "the", and "customs arrangement") both the EU and UK know there will be zero tariffs on goods, so the issue is how to police transport for Rules of Origin.
Container ports shouldn't be an issue. Most goods there are unloaded by crane and can wait many hours before being collected by lorry, or hauled away by locomotive. So there is scope for inspections and paperwork, if required. Indeed, for non-EU imports it already happens.
Airport freight is varied, but not hugely. Consignment paperwork will be checked in freight terminals. It is a legal (safety) requirement for planes to list their cargo manifests in full. Goods will be scanned in the same way your baggage is every time you board, check-in, or collect from the carousel. That's how they spot smugglers for a "random" inspection; the x-ray shows up a huge hole in your bag if you're trying to sneak in 2,000 fags, and CCTV/customs officers then monitor who picks it up.
The issue is Northern Ireland, and Dover/Eurotunnel. There are something like 13-14k lorries going through there each day. Norway uses an IT system and comms network to register goods before they leave the warehouse. Auto-Numberplate Recognition (APNR)/CCTV at the border, with mobile customs units that can then intercept behind the border for anyone who is fishy.
I imagine we'd something similar and, as we're starting from scratch (sort of) the system can be designed accordingly. APNR can easily scan every numberplate - just as your car reg flashes up overhead for your 2-hours free parking every time you go to park at Sainsbury's. The challenge is integration of the IT, CCTV, ANPR, and database, via super-fast broadband, with a slick customs operation.
The key to success is close collaboration between the UK and EU on the new system. A new border agreement would require data-sharing on fraud, monitoring and interception. But I don't see that as a problem. The Sandhurst Treaty shows how practical Macron/May are.
I'd argue that's what the UK will try to do. It could take 5-10 years to fully implement such a system (IT infrastructure and training isn't quick) so I'd expect "a" customs agreement on alignment transition in the meantime, with a long-term plan for integration into a new UK customs clearance regime.
Just over half the people is a democratic majority. It was the biggest vote for change in British political history. You stand revealed as someone who doesnt believe in democracy -unless it goes your way.
Err... just over 1/3rd of the people.
1/3rd voted the other way and the remaining 1/3rd either did not understand the question or simply could not be bothered to vote.
On the customs union, it's the inevitable consequence if we want to strike the most advantageous possible trade deals outside the EU. If we were to remain within the customs union with the EU, wouldn't that by definition affect the terms of any future trade deals we could strike with the likes of the US, China or India ?
Clearly, the May Government believes (or wants to believe) an independent UK fully removed from the EU can seek better trade deals than has so far been achieved as part of the EU.
Looking at Germany is cherry picking one part of a currency union. It would be like just looking at London. Germany's export strength is due to it benefitting from export weakness elsewhere in the Eurozone dragging diwn its exchange rate.
Why can't we cherry-pick? Do you aspire to Greek economic performance for the UK? What want of ambition!
Because Germany and Greece share an exchamge rate. We can't copy their model without being in a currency union with someone as weak as Greece, which is obviously a stupid idea.
I don't think I agree with you that Germany's export success to China is down to a common currency with Greece, but let's go with the argument, it clearly isn't a stupid idea for Germany. The UK can still aim more to emulate Germany than to emulate Greece.
Germany does benefit from an artificially low exchange rate. This is one of the beefs the United States has with Berlin.
But clearly there is more to German industrial might than exchange rates so we should look at what else is involved that we might adopt from them. State holdings in industry, for instance; powerful workers' councils on company boards; female heads of government.
But somehow, magically, not being in the Customs Union or the Single Market will make it much more difficult to export to the EU? It makes no sense whatsoever.
Oh dear.
Ask the car manufacturers if leaving the single market makes things "much more difficult" then get back to us
Third Brexit thread in a row! BINO is the only form of Brexit that
Tip.
d.
g.
Any
g
Bling?
I’ve always been consistent
A cost and it's worth it?
Absolutely fair enough. If the government were to be as honest, then we could at least get on with it.
An analogy is redeploying capital from a mature business to a new growth opportunity. There’s a short term opportunity cost (not an absolute cost) but long term we will be better off (assuming we execute effectively). When the cross over is I don’t know and it doesn’t matter - I tend to think on a multi-generational basis
Sadly for us, Charles, you know what happens in the long run.
Plus, on the more formal point, discounted to today, there is no point making a gain in XX years time if today's benefit is trivial.
I’ve worked with an investor who makes all there decisions based on an assumption that they will hold assets for eternity...
As for the long run, the individual is not important: we are all but links in a chain
The investor would not undertake an NPV-negative project, though, would he/she?
They have forgone NPV-positive projects (specifically this is the Diocese of London which refuses to sell freeholds inside the City)
That's fine. But they would not undertake an NPV-negative one.
That is what we are talking about here. A future benefit means nothing if today's value is negative. As they say, and as of course you know, when discussing discounting - you can't get to there from here.
Brexiteers believe it is NPV positive - the future upside offsets the expected lower growth from the EU market
This is where the conversation started. You all said that "it's not all about the economics", implying that you understood that there would be a cost. You now say that "Brexiters believe it is NPV positive".
So I asked whether it is a cost, the price of which is worth paying (presumably) or whether there will be a Brexit bonus.
On the customs union, it's the inevitable consequence if we want to strike the most advantageous possible trade deals outside the EU. If we were to remain within the customs union with the EU, wouldn't that by definition affect the terms of any future trade deals we could strike with the likes of the US, China or India ?
Clearly, the May Government believes (or wants to believe) an independent UK fully removed from the EU can seek better trade deals than has so far been achieved as part of the EU.
Looking at Germany is cherry picking one part of a currency union. It would be like just looking at London. Germany's export strength is due to it benefitting from export weakness elsewhere in the Eurozone dragging diwn its exchange rate.
Why can't we cherry-pick? Do you aspire to Greek economic performance for the UK? What want of ambition!
Because Germany and Greece share an exchamge rate. We can't copy their model without being in a currency union with someone as weak as Greece, which is obviously a stupid idea.
I don't think I agree with you that Germany's export success to China is down to a common currency with Greece, but let's go with the argument, it clearly isn't a stupid idea for Germany. The UK can still aim more to emulate Germany than to emulate Greece.
This seems obvious, but many Brexiteers seem to have an absolutely irrational inferiority complex about Germany. The irony is that Brexit itself is the Greek trap of their nightmares.
The old saw seems to have been reversed, the Tommy is always either at your throat or your feet.
I don't think I agree with you that Germany's export success to China is down to a common currency with Greece, but let's go with the argument, it clearly isn't a stupid idea for Germany. The UK can still aim more to emulate Germany than to emulate Greece.
The reason that the Germans export more to China than we do is because they make stuff that the Chinese want to buy and they have invested time and money in marketing it. They also tend to invest for the long term, have better productivity rates than us and put strong emphasis on quality. Decisions that UK businesses and investors have taken over decades - and which have nothing to do with the EU - are why we are where we are.
Making it harder and more expensive for us to trade with our biggest export market will obviously lead to recalibration: some businesses will move to or open up operations in the EU, others will close down and others will redirect their focus to new markets. How long a process that will be remains to be seen - as does the damage it will do.
Let's focus, for instance, on car manufacturing, which is a highly integrated business involving much seamless tooing and froing across the Channel currently. If the Brexit deal we end up with makes it uneconomic to continue manufacturing in the UK, then plants that pay good wages and offer sustainable employment will close down. What will replace them in the places where that happens? What will happen to the communities that are affected? There are many parts of the UK that have yet to recover from the decline of heavy industry that occurred in the 1980s. How do we prevent that happening again?
Overall, the UK will grow, GDP will move forward. But it will be regionally. What happened in the 1980s was very good indeed for London and the South East, but the benefits were less magnificent elsewhere. If we really are saying goodbye to seamless trade with the EU, then we need a plan for what happens when the industries that currently depend on it close down. Where is that plan?
But somehow, magically, not being in the Customs Union or the Single Market will make it much more difficult to export to the EU? It makes no sense whatsoever. We don't have trade deals with most of the rest of the world and yet we trade with them. Why will the EU be different?
On the customs union, it's the inevitable consequence if we want to strike the most advantageous possible trade deals outside the EU. If we were to remain within the customs union with the EU, wouldn't that by definition affect the terms of any future trade deals we could strike with the likes of the US, China or India ?
Clearly, the May Government believes (or wants to believe) an independent UK fully removed from the EU can seek better trade deals than has so far been achieved as part of the EU.
Looking at Germany is cherry picking one part of a currency union. It would be like just looking at London. Germany's export strength is due to it benefitting from export weakness elsewhere in the Eurozone dragging diwn its exchange rate.
Why can't we cherry-pick? Do you aspire to Greek economic performance for the UK? What want of ambition!
Because Germany and Greece share an exchamge rate. We can't copy their model without being in a currency union with someone as weak as Greece, which is obviously a stupid idea.
I don't think I agree with you that Germany's export success to China is down to a common currency with Greece, but let's go with the argument, it clearly isn't a stupid idea for Germany. The UK can still aim more to emulate Germany than to emulate Greece.
Not really. The fact we needed a 30% devaluation during the crisis shows we would have instead seen a collapse in GDP if our exchange rate was locked in. Unlike the French and Germans, we don't get special favours in the EU.
However, I would be very on board with other German policies: trade schools from 14, regional and investment banks, valued apprenticeship schemes etc.
Just over half the people is a democratic majority. It was the biggest vote for change in British political history. You stand revealed as someone who doesnt believe in democracy -unless it goes your way.
Err... just over 1/3rd of the people.
1/3rd voted the other way and the remaining 1/3rd either did not understand the question or simply could not be bothered to vote.
Given the disgraceful campaigns on both sides, it is doubtful anyone understood the question. By the final days, it appeared to be a ballot between World War 3 or being overrun by a billion Turks.
ETA: Given the confusion in the Cabinet, perhaps the question cannot be understood. It is inexcusable that David Cameron held the referendum without nailing down what was involved.
If we really are saying goodbye to seamless trade with the EU, then we need a plan for what happens when the industries that currently depend on it close down. Where is that plan?
It sounds as if panic has set in. Why? Surely it's not that silly threat about a takeover by 'the Dream Team'. Anyone could see that was just Boris trying to bolster his hard-Brexit credentials for when, and if, his day of destiny eventually arrives.
Blimmin heck, make up your mind: will there be a Brexit bonus, or is the cost of Brexit a price worth paying?
I’ve always been consistent
A cost and it's worth it?
Absolutely fair enough. If the government were to be as honest, then we could at least get on with it.
An analogy is redeploying capital from a mature business to a new growth opportunity. There’s a short term opportunity cost (not an absolute cost) but long term we will be better off (assuming we execute effectively). When the cross over is I don’t know and it doesn’t matter - I tend to think on a multi-generational basis
Sadly for us, Charles, you know what happens in the long run.
Plus, on the more formal point, discounted to today, there is no point making a gain in XX years time if today's benefit is trivial.
I’ve worked with an investor who makes all there decisions based on an assumption that they will hold assets for eternity...
As for the long run, the individual is not important: we are all but links in a chain
The investor would not undertake an NPV-negative project, though, would he/she?
They have forgone NPV-positive projects (specifically this is the Diocese of London which refuses to sell freeholds inside the City)
That's fine. But they would not undertake an NPV-negative one.
That is what we are talking about here. A future benefit means nothing if today's value is negative. As they say, and as of course you know, when discussing discounting - you can't get to there from here.
Brexiteers believe it is NPV positive - the future upside offsets the expected lower growth from the EU market
Steve Baker made it very clear that Leavers don't believe in any future projections. They're doing this because they want to, not because they have any evidence it's going to be good for Britain.
Indeed. Because there is no evidence at all. The only model to suggest there might be is Patrick Minford’s which assumes we’ll be importing all our food from China and that we’ll need to close down the entire North of England.
Charles seems to be arguing that Brexit will benefit us in the hereafter. But we have long known Brexit was theology not reality.
On the customs union, it's the inevitable consequence if we want to strike the most advantageous possible trade deals outside the EU. If we were to remain within the customs union with the EU, wouldn't that by definition affect the terms of any future trade deals we could strike with the likes of the US, China or India ?
Clearly, the May Government believes (or wants to believe) an independent UK fully removed from the EU can seek better trade deals than has so far been achieved as part of the EU.
Looking at Germany is cherry picking one part of a currency union. It would be like just looking at London. Germany's export strength is due to it benefitting from export weakness elsewhere in the Eurozone dragging diwn its exchange rate.
Why can't we cherry-pick? Do you aspire to Greek economic performance for the UK? What want of ambition!
Because Germany and Greece share an exchamge rate. We can't copy their model without being in a currency union with someone as weak as Greece, which is obviously a stupid idea.
I don't think I agree with you that Germany's export success to China is down to a common currency with Greece, but let's go with the argument, it clearly isn't a stupid idea for Germany. The UK can still aim more to emulate Germany than to emulate Greece.
Not really. The fact we needed a 30% devaluation during the crisis shows we would have instead seen a collapse in GDP if our exchange rate was locked in. Unlike the French and Germans, we don't get special favours in the EU.
Our lack of influence in the Eurogroup might just be connected to the fact that we're not part of it.
Absolutely fair enough. If the government were to be as honest, then we could at least get on with it.
An analogy is redeploying capital from a mature business to a new growth opportunity. There’s a short term opportunity cost (not an absolute cost) but long term we will be better off (assuming we execute effectively). When the cross over is I don’t know and it doesn’t matter - I tend to think on a multi-generational basis
Sadly for us, Charles, you know what happens in the long run.
Plus, on the more formal point, discounted to today, there is no point making a gain in XX years time if today's benefit is trivial.
I’ve worked with an investor who makes all there decisions based on an assumption that they will hold assets for eternity...
As for the long run, the individual is not important: we are all but links in a chain
The investor would not undertake an NPV-negative project, though, would he/she?
They have forgone NPV-positive projects (specifically this is the Diocese of London which refuses to sell freeholds inside the City)
That's fine. But they would not undertake an NPV-negative one.
That is what we are talking about here. A future benefit means nothing if today's value is negative. As they say, and as of course you know, when discussing discounting - you can't get to there from here.
Brexiteers believe it is NPV positive - the future upside offsets the expected lower growth from the EU market
Steve Baker made it very clear that Leavers don't believe in any future projections. They're doing this because they want to, not because they have any evidence it's going to be good for Britain.
Indeed. Because there is no evidence at all. The only model to suggest there might be is Patrick Minford’s which assumes we’ll be importing all our food from China and that we’ll need to close down the entire North of England.
Charles seems to be arguing that Brexit will benefit us in the hereafter. But we also knew Brexit was theology not reality.
I was fascinated by Leavers' response to my thread yesterday. Not a single Leaver sought to defend the way in which the government is approaching its decision-making process. There was a lot of annoyance with me, but no real challenge to the actual argument on that point.
Being more at the mercy of global competition was always a consequence of Brexit. I don't know why you are so surprised.
I think my surprise has been the simplicity and paucity of the arguments put forward by those claiming to be global internationalists. It's not just a "race to the bottom" in terms of wages, regulations and living standards for the majority but you can see the Johnsons, Goves and Rees-Moggs of this world lining up the argument.
"We are free of EU regulation, We have taken back control. Now is the time to simplify our laws and make a real bonfire of obsolete regulation which has held us back. Time for us all to work harder and longer (for less) to build Global Britain and to bring the very best (wealthiest) here, we will abolish corporation tax and reduce tax rates on higher incomes.
The world's finest will always be welcome on our shores and be sure there will always be someone with a smile to drive their cars, pour their coffee, clean their rooms and shine their shoes because that's what Global Britain in the 21st Century is about."
The reason that the Germans export more to China than we do is because they make stuff that the Chinese want to buy and they have invested time and money in marketing it. They also tend to invest for the long term, have better productivity rates than us and put strong emphasis on quality. Decisions that UK businesses and investors have taken over decades - and which have nothing to do with the EU - are why we are where we are.
Making it harder and more expensive for us to trade with our biggest export market will obviously lead to recalibration: some businesses will move to or open up operations in the EU, others will close down and others will redirect their focus to new markets. How long a process that will be remains to be seen - as does the damage it will do.
Let's focus, for instance, on car manufacturing, which is a highly integrated business involving much seamless tooing and froing across the Channel currently. If the Brexit deal we end up with makes it uneconomic to continue manufacturing in the UK, then plants that pay good wages and offer sustainable employment will close down. What will replace them in the places where that happens? What will happen to the communities that are affected? There are many parts of the UK that have yet to recover from the decline of heavy industry that occurred in the 1980s. How do we prevent that happening again?
Overall, the UK will grow, GDP will move forward. But it will be regionally. What happened in the 1980s was very good indeed for London and the South East, but the benefits were less magnificent elsewhere. If we really are saying goodbye to seamless trade with the EU, then we need a plan for what happens when the industries that currently depend on it close down. Where is that plan?
Even if supply chains cross-border became impossible - and I don't believe that will happen - car companies have established end to end operations worth a lot less to them than the UK. Supply chains to the EU would be offshored there, while supply chains to the UK would be brought onshore. Given we don't have a disproportionate share of EU automotive manufacturing, end result would be a wash, I suspect.
But somehow, magically, not being in the Customs Union or the Single Market will make it much more difficult to export to the EU? It makes no sense whatsoever. We don't have trade deals with most of the rest of the world and yet we trade with them. Why will the EU be different?
We have, I think, about 600 trade-related agreements through the EU with non-EU parties.
Edit and we trade A LOT less with the people that we don't have close agreements than the one with whom we have the closest agreement that exists anywhere else in the world. The two might be linked
But somehow, magically, not being in the Customs Union or the Single Market will make it much more difficult to export to the EU? It makes no sense whatsoever. We don't have trade deals with most of the rest of the world and yet we trade with them. Why will the EU be different?
Is this sarcasm?
No, its reality. Our trade with the EU will continue on more or less the current level almost regardless of whether we have a deal, BINO, a currency union, the currency union, whatever. Trade barriers are marginal in the modern world. NTBs can be more of a hindrance but as all our manufacturers are currently 100% compliant with EU/our standards that really is not an issue for the foreseeable future.
This whole debate is taking place with a level of hysteria that is both counterproductive and disproportionate with completely extravagant claims on both sides. It is a proxy for having a neverendum on EU membership. Its just absurd.
The first crack in the Sturgeons polical armour within the SNP?
Maybe.
Sturgeon's a bit lucky that people haven't much focussed that in the last two years, the SNP have made net seat losses at Holyrood*, in council seats, and of course at Westminster (although they do have 29 more MPs now than when Nicola Sturgeon became leader)
*Like Theresa May she lost someone else's majority.
The SNP had 425 council seats in 2012 and 431 in 2017.
Absolutely fair enough. If the government were to be as honest, then we could at least get on with it.
An analogy is redeploying capital from a mature business to a new growth opportunity. There’s a short term opportunity cost (not an absolute cost) but long term we will be better off (assuming we execute effectively). When the cross over is I don’t know and it doesn’t matter - I tend to think on a multi-generational basis
Sadly for us, Charles, you know what happens in the long run.
Plus, on the more formal point, discounted to today, there is no point making a gain in XX years time if today's benefit is trivial.
I’ve worked with an investor who makes all there decisions based on an assumption that they will hold assets for eternity...
As for the long run, the individual is not important: we are all but links in a chain
The investor would not undertake an NPV-negative project, though, would he/she?
They have forgone NPV-positive projects (specifically this is the Diocese of London which refuses to sell freeholds inside the City)
That's fine. But they would not undertake an NPV-negative one.
That is what we are talking about here. A future benefit means nothing if today's value is negative. As they say, and as of course you know, when discussing discounting - you can't get to there from here.
Brexiteers believe it is NPV positive - the future upside offsets the expected lower growth from the EU market
This is where the conversation started. You all said that "it's not all about the economics", implying that you understood that there would be a cost. You now say that "Brexiters believe it is NPV positive".
So I asked whether it is a cost, the price of which is worth paying (presumably) or whether there will be a Brexit bonus.
Can I ask the same question again?
There is a near term opportunity cost which, long term, will be offset (NPV positive) by external opportunities. But Most individuals focus on the very short term in a personal basis. Hence the “I’m sure it will be fine” argument - people are saying that long term it will work out.
The cherry on the cake is that the political benefits of Brexit also gave material intangible value which make people feel better about the near term opportunity cost, but which are hard to include in an NPV analysis.
They key thing for me is number of Republican's stepping down and not contesting this year. It's Huge. It's Biggest of All Time. You've never seen so many Republicans retiring.
I was fascinated by Leavers' response to my thread yesterday. Not a single Leaver sought to defend the way in which the government is approaching its decision-making process. There was a lot of annoyance with me, but no real challenge to the actual argument on that point.
What did you expect Alistair? Plaudits? Reasoned argument?
This is WW1 all over again - everyone in their trenches lobbing explosives at each other and neither side moving an inch.
The first crack in the Sturgeons polical armour within the SNP?
Maybe.
Sturgeon's a bit lucky that people haven't much focussed that in the last two years, the SNP have made net seat losses at Holyrood*, in council seats, and of course at Westminster (although they do have 29 more MPs now than when Nicola Sturgeon became leader)
*Like Theresa May she lost someone else's majority.
The SNP had 425 council seats in 2012 and 431 in 2017.
It was a (marginally) smaller percentage though as the number of Councillors went up.
Blimmin heck, make up your mind: will there be a Brexit bonus, or is the cost of Brexit a price worth paying?
I’ve always been consistent
A cost and it's worth it?
Absolutely fair enough. If the government were to be as honest, then we could at least get on with it.
An analogy is redeploying capital from a mature business to a new growth opportunity. There’s a short term opportunity cost (not an absolute cost) but long term we will be better off (assuming we execute effectively). When the cross over is I don’t know and it doesn’t matter - I tend to think on a multi-generational basis
Sadly for us, Charles, you know what happens in the long run.
Plus, on the more formal point, discounted to today, there is no point making a gain in XX years time if today's benefit is trivial.
I’ve worked with an investor who makes all there decisions based on an assumption that they will hold assets for eternity...
As for the long run, the individual is not important: we are all but links in a chain
The investor would not undertake an NPV-negative project, though, would he/she?
They have forgone NPV-positive projects (specifically this is the Diocese of London which refuses to sell freeholds inside the City)
That's fine. But they would not undertake an NPV-negative one.
That is what we are talking about here. A future benefit means nothing if today's value is negative. As they say, and as of course you know, when discussing discounting - you can't get to there from here.
Brexiteers believe it is NPV positive - the future upside offsets the expected lower growth from the EU market
Steve Baker made it very clear that Leavers don't believe in any future projections. They're doing this because they want to, not because they have any evidence it's going to be good for Britain.
Indeed. Because there is no evidence at all. The only model to suggest there might be is Patrick Minford’s which assumes we’ll be importing all our food from China and that we’ll need to close down the entire North of England.
Charles seems to be arguing that Brexit will benefit us in the hereafter. But we have long known Brexit was theology not reality.
No - I’m saying in a 50 or hundred year view that UK will be a better place for not being part of the EU.
The first crack in the Sturgeons polical armour within the SNP?
Maybe.
Sturgeon's a bit lucky that people haven't much focussed that in the last two years, the SNP have made net seat losses at Holyrood*, in council seats, and of course at Westminster (although they do have 29 more MPs now than when Nicola Sturgeon became leader)
*Like Theresa May she lost someone else's majority.
The SNP had 425 council seats in 2012 and 431 in 2017.
All things are possible in the long term. The problem is the headbangers insist we leave all the way out and do so on day 1 or with only a short transition period. They will have to compromise on something...
Lots of food comments this morning. A few observations: 1. The UK could be more self sufficient - a lot of non-UK produce on things we can grow here. Problem is that UK people tend not to work in the fields or food factories. Could incentivise them with more wages but that will push prices up somewhat significantly. 2. Industry margins are wafer thin and factories shut on a regular basis having gone bust. If a cheaper source was available it would already be used 3. Someone made the comment "don't we import from outside the EU"? Yes - quite a bit. Problem being the lack of capacity both physical and computerised to process more transactions through the ports
Brexiteer headbangers insist it will all be fine - and it might be in the longer run. Its what happens immediately after that terrifies the industry. They literally don't know how to keep things like fresh food on sale and how to prevent double digit price rises. Rhetoric from clueless ill-informed politicians and their supporters doesn't change the facts on the ground.
The first crack in the Sturgeons polical armour within the SNP?
Maybe.
Sturgeon's a bit lucky that people haven't much focussed that in the last two years, the SNP have made net seat losses at Holyrood*, in council seats, and of course at Westminster (although they do have 29 more MPs now than when Nicola Sturgeon became leader)
*Like Theresa May she lost someone else's majority.
The SNP had 425 council seats in 2012 and 431 in 2017.
It was a (marginally) smaller percentage though as the number of Councillors went up.
Total number of council seats across Scotland increased by 4, so the SNP increased their percentage of seats.
The SNP had 34.75% of the seats in 2012 to 35.1% of the seats in 2017.
The first crack in the Sturgeons polical armour within the SNP?
Maybe.
Sturgeon's a bit lucky that people haven't much focussed that in the last two years, the SNP have made net seat losses at Holyrood*, in council seats, and of course at Westminster (although they do have 29 more MPs now than when Nicola Sturgeon became leader)
*Like Theresa May she lost someone else's majority.
The SNP had 425 council seats in 2012 and 431 in 2017.
I was going based on the figures on the FOAK which took into account boundary changes.
But somehow, magically, not being in the Customs Union or the Single Market will make it much more difficult to export to the EU? It makes no sense whatsoever. We don't have trade deals with most of the rest of the world and yet we trade with them. Why will the EU be different?
Is this sarcasm?
No, its reality. Our trade with the EU will continue on more or less the current level almost regardless of whether we have a deal, BINO, a currency union, the currency union, whatever. Trade barriers are marginal in the modern world. NTBs can be more of a hindrance but as all our manufacturers are currently 100% compliant with EU/our standards that really is not an issue for the foreseeable future.
This whole debate is taking place with a level of hysteria that is both counterproductive and disproportionate with completely extravagant claims on both sides. It is a proxy for having a neverendum on EU membership. Its just absurd.
Wow - so none of it matters? No deal, deal, financial passporting - the whole shebang is basically irrelevant.
The first crack in the Sturgeons polical armour within the SNP?
Maybe.
Sturgeon's a bit lucky that people haven't much focussed that in the last two years, the SNP have made net seat losses at Holyrood*, in council seats, and of course at Westminster (although they do have 29 more MPs now than when Nicola Sturgeon became leader)
*Like Theresa May she lost someone else's majority.
The SNP had 425 council seats in 2012 and 431 in 2017.
Yeah, but there were boundary changes.
IF you want to predict how many seats a party 'should' have had in multi-member STV wards where all main parties are infamously cautious in the number of candidates they put forward then knock yourself out. I just know that the SNP have a greater percentage of the total seats in 2017 than they did in 2012.
But somehow, magically, not being in the Customs Union or the Single Market will make it much more difficult to export to the EU? It makes no sense whatsoever. We don't have trade deals with most of the rest of the world and yet we trade with them. Why will the EU be different?
Is this sarcasm?
No, its reality. Our trade with the EU will continue on more or less the current level almost regardless of whether we have a deal, BINO, a currency union, the currency union, whatever. Trade barriers are marginal in the modern world. NTBs can be more of a hindrance but as all our manufacturers are currently 100% compliant with EU/our standards that really is not an issue for the foreseeable future.
This whole debate is taking place with a level of hysteria that is both counterproductive and disproportionate with completely extravagant claims on both sides. It is a proxy for having a neverendum on EU membership. Its just absurd.
While there's something in that, both economics and politics tend to be about what happens at the margins. And the effect on people's lives caused by the difference between 1% growth and no growth is quite significant for those existing on the margin - less so for (say) Charles ...or me.
I was fascinated by Leavers' response to my thread yesterday. Not a single Leaver sought to defend the way in which the government is approaching its decision-making process. There was a lot of annoyance with me, but no real challenge to the actual argument on that point.
What did you expect Alistair? Plaudits? Reasoned argument?
This is WW1 all over again - everyone in their trenches lobbing explosives at each other and neither side moving an inch.
I expected some kind of engagement with the argument. Instead there was a lot of "don't be beastly" posts from the usual snowflakes.
I was fascinated by Leavers' response to my thread yesterday. Not a single Leaver sought to defend the way in which the government is approaching its decision-making process. There was a lot of annoyance with me, but no real challenge to the actual argument on that point.
What did you expect Alistair? Plaudits? Reasoned argument?
This is WW1 all over again - everyone in their trenches lobbing explosives at each other and neither side moving an inch.
Absolutely fair enough. If the government were to be as honest, then we could at least get on with it.
An analogy is redeploying capital from a mature business to a new growth opportunity. There’s a short term opportunity cost (not an absolute cost) but long term we will be better off (assuming we execute effectively). When the cross over is I don’t know and it doesn’t matter - I tend to think on a multi-generational basis
As for the long run, the individual is not important: we are all but links in a chain
The investor would not undertake an NPV-negative project, though, would he/she?
They have forgone NPV-positive projects (specifically this is the Diocese of London which refuses to sell freeholds inside the City)
.
Brexiteers believe it is NPV positive - the future upside offsets the expected lower growth from the EU market
Steve Baker made it very clear that Leavers don't believe in any future projections. They're doing this because they want to, not because they have any evidence it's going to be good for Britain.
Indeed. Because there is no evidence at all. The only model to suggest there might be is Patrick Minford’s which assumes we’ll be importing all our food from China and that we’ll need to close down the entire North of England.
Charles seems to be arguing that Brexit will benefit us in the hereafter. But we also knew Brexit was theology not reality.
I was fascinated by Leavers' response to my thread yesterday. Not a single Leaver sought to defend the way in which the government is approaching its decision-making process. There was a lot of annoyance with me, but no real challenge to the actual argument on that point.
The government is not able to dictate the decision making process because it is a negotiation with the other 27 countries of the EU.
Probably would have been a stronger position for the UK to start by saying we would be going to WTO terms unless the EU gave concessions and which gives us a stronger position vis a viz the current vacuum.
Blimmin heck, make up your mind: will there be a Brexit bonus, or is the cost of Brexit a price worth paying?
I’ve always been consistent
A cost and it's worth it?
Absolutely fair enough. If the government were to be as honest, then we could at least get on with it.
An basis
Sadly for us, Charles, you know what happens in the long run.
Plus, on the more formal point, discounted to today, there is no point making a gain in XX years time if today's benefit is trivial.
I’ve worked with an investor who makes all there decisions based on an assumption that they will hold assets for eternity...
As for the long run, the individual is not important: we are all but links in a chain
The investor would not undertake an NPV-negative project, though, would he/she?
They have forgone NPV-positive projects (specifically this is the Diocese of London which refuses to sell freeholds inside the City)
That's fine. But they would not undertake an NPV-negative one.
That is what we are talking about here. A future benefit means nothing if today's value is negative. As they say, and as of course you know, when discussing discounting - you can't get to there from here.
Brexiteers believe it is NPV positive - the future upside offsets the expected lower growth from the EU market
Steve Baker made it very clear that Leavers don't believe in any future projections. They're doing this because they want to, not because they have any evidence it's going to be good for Britain.
Indeed. Because there is no evidence at all. The only model to suggest there might be is Patrick Minford’s which assumes we’ll be importing all our food from China and that we’ll need to close down the entire North of England.
Charles seems to be arguing that Brexit will benefit us in the hereafter. But we have long known Brexit was theology not reality.
No - I’m saying in a 50 or hundred year view that UK will be a better place for not being part of the EU.
And you and your family will be absolutely fine in the meantime, Charles. So that's good news.
Blimmin heck, make up your mind: will there be a Brexit bonus, or is the cost of Brexit a price worth paying?
I’ve always been consistent
A cost and it's worth it?
Absolutely fair enough. If the government were to be as honest, then we could at least get on with it.
matter - I tend to think on a multi-generational basis
Sadly for us, Charles, you know what happens in the long run.
Plus, on the more formal point, discounted to today, there is no point making a gain in XX years time if today's benefit is trivial.
I’ve worked with an investor who makes all there decisions based on an assumption that they will hold assets for eternity...
As for the long run, the individual is not important: we are all but links in a chain
The investor would not undertake an NPV-negative project, though, would he/she?
They have forgone NPV-positive projects (specifically this is the Diocese of London which refuses to sell freeholds inside the City)
That's fine. But they would not undertake an NPV-negative one.
That is what we are talking about here. A future benefit means nothing if today's value is negative. As they say, and as of course you know, when discussing discounting - you can't get to there from here.
Brexiteers believe it is NPV positive - the future upside offsets the expected lower growth from the EU market
Steve Baker made it very clear that Leavers don't believe in any future projections. They're doing this because they want to, not because they have any evidence it's going to be good for Britain.
Indeed. Because there is no evidence at all. The only model to suggest there might be is Patrick Minford’s which assumes we’ll be importing all our food from China and that we’ll need to close down the entire North of England.
Charles seems to be arguing that Brexit will benefit us in the hereafter. But we have long known Brexit was theology not reality.
No - I’m saying in a 50 or hundred year view that UK will be a better place for not being part of the EU.
Convenient that none of us is likely to around to call you out on that judgment, though.
But somehow, magically, not being in the Customs Union or the Single Market will make it much more difficult to export to the EU? It makes no sense whatsoever. We don't have trade deals with most of the rest of the world and yet we trade with them. Why will the EU be different?
We have, I think, about 600 trade-related agreements through the EU with non-EU parties.
Edit and we trade A LOT less with the people that we don't have close agreements than the one with whom we have the closest agreement that exists anywhere else in the world. The two might be linked
We do not have overarching trade agreements with the US (our largest single customer), with China, with India, with Brazil.... Rolling over the existing EU agreements post Brexit should, however, be a priority. Unfortunately Dr Fox was put in charge of it.
But somehow, magically, not being in the Customs Union or the Single Market will make it much more difficult to export to the EU? It makes no sense whatsoever. We don't have trade deals with most of the rest of the world and yet we trade with them. Why will the EU be different?
Is this sarcasm?
This whole debate is taking place with a level of hysteria that is both counterproductive and disproportionate with completely extravagant claims on both sides. It is a proxy for having a neverendum on EU membership. Its just absurd.
+1
As one exporter remarked 'The biggest trade barrier I've ever encountered was 'language''
An analogy is redeploying capital from a mature business to a new growth opportunity. There’s a short term opportunity cost (not an absolute cost) but long term we will be better off (assuming we execute effectively). When the cross over is I don’t know and it doesn’t matter - I tend to think on a multi-generational basis
Another superficially attractive Leave argument that evaporates on contact with reality.
It is certainly true in business that there have been disruptive events, and it has been beneficial to invest in those. Manufacturers of cable driven steam shovels couldn't see a need for small hydraulic diggers and died out, for example.
The issue here of course is not that we are transferring to a new technology, or great new opportunity.
What we are talking about doing is ripping up the best free trade agreement in history, so we can replace it with a much worse agreement to sell the same things to the same people in the same markets.
That's not a growth opportunity.
That's insanity.
Except that the EU are doing trade deals with the likes of Canada, which are fantastic for German manufactured goods and French agricultural exports, yet contain almost nothing on British financial services, despite nearly a decade of negotiation.
I was fascinated by Leavers' response to my thread yesterday. Not a single Leaver sought to defend the way in which the government is approaching its decision-making process. There was a lot of annoyance with me, but no real challenge to the actual argument on that point.
This is WW1 all over again - everyone in their trenches lobbing explosives at each other and neither side moving an inch.
On the customs union, it's the inevitable consequence if we want to strike the most advantageous possible trade deals outside the EU. If we were to remain within the customs union with the EU, wouldn't that by definition affect the terms of any future trade deals we could strike with the likes of the US, China or India ?
Clearly, the May Government believes (or wants to believe) an independent UK fully removed from the EU can seek better trade deals than has so far been achieved as part of the EU.
Looking at Germany is cherry picking one part of a currency union. It would be like just looking at London. Germany's export strength is due to it benefitting from export weakness elsewhere in the Eurozone dragging diwn its exchange rate.
Why can't we cherry-pick? Do you aspire to Greek economic performance for the UK? What want of ambition!
Because Germany and Greece share an exchamge rate. We can't copy their model without being in a currency union with someone as weak as Greece, which is obviously a stupid idea.
If you think that's their model, we're beating Germany at their own game. The Pound has lost value against the Euro since its inception, from 1.40 in 1999 to 1.13 today.
That almost entirely reflects our devaluation during the 2008 crisis. Unlike the Germans, we weren't in a position to corral the EU to bailout our banks by proxy.
I was fascinated by Leavers' response to my thread yesterday. Not a single Leaver sought to defend the way in which the government is approaching its decision-making process. There was a lot of annoyance with me, but no real challenge to the actual argument on that point.
What did you expect Alistair? Plaudits? Reasoned argument?
This is WW1 all over again - everyone in their trenches lobbing explosives at each other and neither side moving an inch.
Actually it is 1919, and the Remainers are outdoing each other in bigging up the unbelievable size and destructive power of the explosives they could have been lobbing during the actual hostilities, except that they couldn't be arsed to.
Blimmin heck, make up your mind: will there be a Brexit bonus, or is the cost of Brexit a price worth paying?
I’ve always been consistent
A cost and it's worth it?
Absolutely fair enough. If the government were to be as honest, then we could at least get on with it.
An analogy is redeploying capital from a mature business to a new growth opportunity. There’s a short term opportunity cost (not an absolute cost) but long term we will be better off (assuming we execute effectively). When the cross over is I don’t know and it doesn’t matter - I tend to think on a multi-generational basis
Sadly for us, Charles, you know what happens in the long run.
Plus, on the more formal point, discounted to today, there is no point making a gain in XX years time if today's benefit is trivial.
I’ve worked with an investor who makes all there decisions based on an assumption that they will hold assets for eternity...
As for the long run, the individual is not important: we are all but links in a chain
The investor would not undertake an NPV-negative project, though, would he/she?
They have forgone NPV-positive projects (specifically this is the Diocese of London which refuses to sell freeholds inside the City)
That's fine. But they would not undertake an NPV-negative one.
That is what we are talking about here. A future benefit means nothing if today's value is negative. As they say, and as of course you know, when discussing discounting - you can't get to there from here.
Brexiteers believe it is NPV positive - the future upside offsets the expected lower growth from the EU market
Steve Baker made it very clear that Leavers don't believe in any future projections. They're doing this because they want to, not because they have any evidence it's going to be good for Britain.
Charles seems to be arguing that Brexit will benefit us in the hereafter. But we have long known Brexit was theology not reality.
No - I’m saying in a 50 or hundred year view that UK will be a better place for not being part of the EU.
Why stop at 100 years? Surely, in a 1000 years economic historians living in an underwater techtropolis in another galaxy will decide, on balance, that Brexit was worth it.
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
The first crack in the Sturgeons polical armour within the SNP?
Maybe.
Sturgeon's a bit lucky that people haven't much focussed that in the last two years, the SNP have made net seat losses at Holyrood*, in council seats, and of course at Westminster (although they do have 29 more MPs now than when Nicola Sturgeon became leader)
*Like Theresa May she lost someone else's majority.
The SNP had 425 council seats in 2012 and 431 in 2017.
I was going based on the figures on the FOAK which took into account boundary changes.
Given that the SNP, Labour and the Conservatives are super cautious about number of candidates (The Conservatives missed out on a number of gains in 2017 due to not fielding enough candidates in strong wards) I'd love to have a breakdown of where the notional councilors were lost to see if there are some wards where there would have been 3 notional SNP councillors goting down to 2
But somehow, magically, not being in the Customs Union or the Single Market will make it much more difficult to export to the EU? It makes no sense whatsoever. We don't have trade deals with most of the rest of the world and yet we trade with them. Why will the EU be different?
Is this sarcasm?
No, its reality. Our trade with the EU will continue on more or less the current level almost regardless of whether we have a deal, BINO, a currency union, the currency union, whatever. Trade barriers are marginal in the modern world. NTBs can be more of a hindrance but as all our manufacturers are currently 100% compliant with EU/our standards that really is not an issue for the foreseeable future.
This whole debate is taking place with a level of hysteria that is both counterproductive and disproportionate with completely extravagant claims on both sides. It is a proxy for having a neverendum on EU membership. Its just absurd.
While there's something in that, both economics and politics tend to be about what happens at the margins. And the effect on people's lives caused by the difference between 1% growth and no growth is quite significant for those existing on the margin - less so for (say) Charles ...or me.
As Robert and others have pointed out repeatedly our own domestic policies are far, far more significant for those at the margins. Will we invest more in infrastructure, improve our educational system, encourage investment rather than consumption, run a sane economic policy, make UC work in a compassionate way, build more houses...all of these will affect people at the margins more than a customs union.
At the risk of agreeing with @Alastair_Meeks by far the biggest cost of Brexit is the distraction from the real issues we face. In the long run it will probably be worth it but years of government paralysis are undoubtedly a heavy price to pay.
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
Tree-Frog would be just as dangerously inexperienced a choice as Mother Leadsom
On the customs union, it's the inevitable consequence if we want to strike the most advantageous possible trade deals outside the EU. If we were to remain within the customs union with the EU, wouldn't that by definition affect the terms of any future trade deals we could strike with the likes of the US, China or India ?
Clearly, the May Government believes (or wants to believe) an independent UK fully removed from the EU can seek better trade deals than has so far been achieved as part of the EU.
Looking at Germany is cherry picking one part of a currency union. It would be like just looking at London. Germany's export strength is due to it benefitting from export weakness elsewhere in the Eurozone dragging diwn its exchange rate.
Why can't we cherry-pick? Do you aspire to Greek economic performance for the UK? What want of ambition!
Because Germany and Greece share an exchamge rate. We can't copy their model without being in a currency union with someone as weak as Greece, which is obviously a stupid idea.
If you think that's their model, we're beating Germany at their own game. The Pound has lost value against the Euro since its inception, from 1.40 in 1999 to 1.13 today.
That almost entirely reflects our devaluation during the 2008 crisis. Unlike the Germans, we weren't in a position to corral the EU to bailout our banks by proxy.
Instead, we bailed out our banks directly.
Right. We paid for our own mistakes. Germany split the cost of theirs.
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
She also said she wouldn’t call an early election nor would be pay a divorce bill.
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
But Ireland have a veto on the deal. No customs union, then there's a border and the deal is off.
Sadly for us, Charles, you know what happens in the long run.
Plus, on the more formal point, discounted to today, there is no point making a gain in XX years time if today's benefit is trivial.
I’ve worked with an investor who makes all there decisions based on an assumption that they will hold assets for eternity...
As for the long run, the individual is not important: we are all but links in a chain
The investor would not undertake an NPV-negative project, though, would he/she?
They have forgone NPV-positive projects (specifically this is the Diocese of London which refuses to sell freeholds inside the City)
That's fine. But they would not undertake an NPV-negative one.
That is what we are talking about here. A future benefit means nothing if today's value is negative. As they say, and as of course you know, when discussing discounting - you can't get to there from here.
Brexiteers believe it is NPV positive - the future upside offsets the expected lower growth from the EU market
This is where the conversation started. You all said that "it's not all about the economics", implying that you understood that there would be a cost. You now say that "Brexiters believe it is NPV positive".
So I asked whether it is a cost, the price of which is worth paying (presumably) or whether there will be a Brexit bonus.
Can I ask the same question again?
There is a near term opportunity cost which, long term, will be offset (NPV positive) by external opportunities. But Most individuals focus on the very short term in a personal basis. Hence the “I’m sure it will be fine” argument - people are saying that long term it will work out.
The cherry on the cake is that the political benefits of Brexit also gave material intangible value which make people feel better about the near term opportunity cost, but which are hard to include in an NPV analysis.
I admire your dexterity!
By definition, you will struggle to reconcile both "long term" and "NPV positive" into any thought process, still less calculation. As for the political element, most social discount rates remain positive.
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
But Ireland have a veto on the deal. No customs union, then there's a border and the deal is off.
And no money is paid to the EU - 50 billion euros is a lot of money
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
the spirit of the referendum... And what is that - and who gets to define it ?
I was fascinated by Leavers' response to my thread yesterday. Not a single Leaver sought to defend the way in which the government is approaching its decision-making process. There was a lot of annoyance with me, but no real challenge to the actual argument on that point.
What did you expect Alistair? Plaudits? Reasoned argument?
This is WW1 all over again - everyone in their trenches lobbing explosives at each other and neither side moving an inch.
I expected some kind of engagement with the argument. Instead there was a lot of "don't be beastly" posts from the usual snowflakes.
Brexit has divided the country like nothing else has since the English Civil War. Even the Miner's Strike or the Winter of Discontent was less divisive.
Blimmin heck, make up your mind: will there be a Brexit bonus, or is the cost of Brexit a price worth paying?
I’ve always been consistent
A cost and it's worth it?
Absolutely fair enough. If the government were to be as honest, then we could at least get on with it.
opportunity cost (not an absolute cost) but long term we will be better off (assuming we execute effectively). When the cross over is I don’t know and it doesn’t matter - I tend to think on a multi-generational basis
Sadly for us, Charles, you know what happens in the long run.
Plus, on the more formal point, discounted to today, there is no point making a gain in XX years time if today's benefit is trivial.
I’ve worked with an investor who makes all there decisions based on an assumption that they will hold assets for eternity...
As for the long run, the individual is not important: we are all but links in a chain
The investor would not undertake an NPV-negative project, though, would he/she?
They have forgone NPV-positive projects (specifically this is the Diocese of London which refuses to sell freeholds inside the City)
That's fine. But they would not undertake an NPV-negative one.
That is what we are talking about here. A future benefit means nothing if today's value is negative. As they say, and as of course you know, when discussing discounting - you can't get to there from here.
Brexiteers believe it is NPV positive - the future upside offsets the expected lower growth from the EU market
Steve Baker made it very clear that Leavers don't believe in any future projections. They're doing this because they want to, not because they have any evidence it's going to be good for Britain.
Charles seems to be arguing that Brexit will benefit us in the hereafter. But we have long known Brexit was theology not reality.
No - I’m saying in a 50 or hundred year view that UK will be a better place for not being part of the EU.
Why stop at 100 years? Surely, in a 1000 years economic historians living in an underwater techtropolis in another galaxy will decide, on balance, that Brexit was worth it.
3 generations forward and 2 back is all I can handle. Sorry to disappoint
Dear me, Brexit does seem to have addled brains on all sides. So let's disentangle things a bit:
- Since Theresa May ruled out staying in a Customs Union with the EU right from the start, and has been completely consistent on the point, and since Phil Hammond confirmed the point in his recent speech, the current frothing at the mouth from both sides on the issue is completely bonkers.
- Being outside the Customs Union has very little bearing on the customs infrastructure question at the Irish border. The UK government aim is to have an agreement with our EU friends which minimises paperwork, and which relies on mutual recognition of administrative processes. The uncertainty on whether this is attainable is entirely because the negotiations haven't started yet. The responsibility for the fact that they haven't started yet lies with the EU, who refused the UK's request to start them over a year ago.
- The criticism of Theresa May which would make sense is one which few people are making, namely that she was too clear and decisive on the subject precisely because she ruled out a Customs Union. My personal view is that this was a mistake, although of course Labour's GE2017 position was identical on this. Leaving the Single Market but entering a new Customs Union (on manufactured goods at least) would be consistent with the referendum result, since in particular it would mean we weren't bound to the freedom of movement rules, and it would be a big help to manufacturing industry (especially car manufacturing), although not to the City. The 52% didn't seem to want to prioritise the City, so that is respecting the referendum result. The downside is of course that we'd be unable to do much in the way of trade deals with non-EU countries other than those negotiated by the EU, and we'd have to stick to EU tariffs on manufactured goods at least. It's a trade-off, and IMO there's a very strong case that it's a trade-off worth taking, although others may disagree. Those arguing for an approach different from Theresa May's but respecting the referendum result should in my view have concentrated on this option. They didn't, they are still arguing for all sorts of incompatible alternatives, some of them quite unrealistic, so the PM's approach remains the only game in town.
This morning Theresa May has made a statement that we are leaving the customs union and that is now being widely reported as the Government position and the media are at last having to explain the pros and cons. To be fair to Adam Boulton, who is a very committed remainer, he really made a good case that any other action would not be in the spirit of the referendum.
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
Yep - I don’t think she can change her mind either.. But if we are leaving SM and CU only after transition period - then that is ages away...
If she can get agreement on a longer transition from the Brexiteers, with a promise that when we leave it is super hard Brexit - then she may be able to thread the needle.
"No - I’m saying in a 50 or hundred year view that UK will be a better place for not being part of the EU."
"Convenient that none of us is likely to around to call you out on that judgment, though."
I went to Wembley in 1985 to see my team, Boston, lose 2 - 1 to Wealdstone in the FA Trophy final. Yet just before the second Wealdstone goal, the ball definitely went out of play. Had the linesman seen it, the goal would never have happened, and with Boston on top at the time, we'd probably have won.
In fifty years time, the score will still be 2 - 1 to Wealdstone, even if I don't accept it. A bit like the referendum result for you, really.
Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Don't do that - I might give you my support if you stay in!" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Why don't you reconsider?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: I've heard you're reconsidering." Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "What about a customs union that exactly mimics the customs union?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union and not replacing it with any other customs union" Remainers: "Oh my God they are all over the place!"
Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Don't do that - I might give you my support if you stay in!" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Why don't you reconsider?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: I've heard you're reconsidering." Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "What about a customs union that exactly mimics the customs union?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union and not replacing it with any other customs union" Remainers: "Oh my God they are all over the place!"
DUP: We can't agree to a hard border. We are bringing the government down.
No, its reality. Our trade with the EU will continue on more or less the current level almost regardless of whether we have a deal, BINO, a currency union, the currency union, whatever. Trade barriers are marginal in the modern world. NTBs can be more of a hindrance but as all our manufacturers are currently 100% compliant with EU/our standards that really is not an issue for the foreseeable future.
This whole debate is taking place with a level of hysteria that is both counterproductive and disproportionate with completely extravagant claims on both sides. It is a proxy for having a neverendum on EU membership. Its just absurd.
While there's something in that, both economics and politics tend to be about what happens at the margins. And the effect on people's lives caused by the difference between 1% growth and no growth is quite significant for those existing on the margin - less so for (say) Charles ...or me.
As Robert and others have pointed out repeatedly our own domestic policies are far, far more significant for those at the margins. Will we invest more in infrastructure, improve our educational system, encourage investment rather than consumption, run a sane economic policy, make UC work in a compassionate way, build more houses...all of these will affect people at the margins more than a customs union.
At the risk of agreeing with @Alastair_Meeks by far the biggest cost of Brexit is the distraction from the real issues we face. In the long run it will probably be worth it but years of government paralysis are undoubtedly a heavy price to pay.
How on earth can you suggest that it will "probably be worth it"? This last week has established that Leavers don't accept the validity of projections for the future and anyone who pays any attention to any gets slapped down.
Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Don't do that - I might give you my support if you stay in!" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Why don't you reconsider?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: I've heard you're reconsidering." Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "What about a customs union that exactly mimics the customs union?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union and not replacing it with any other customs union" Remainers: "Oh my God they are all over the place!"
Where in the timeline is the moment the government signed up to maintain full alignment with the customs union?
Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Don't do that - I might give you my support if you stay in!" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Why don't you reconsider?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: I've heard you're reconsidering." Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "What about a customs union that exactly mimics the customs union?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union and not replacing it with any other customs union" Remainers: "Oh my God they are all over the place!"
Where in the timeline is the moment the government signed up to maintain full alignment with the customs union?
But somehow, magically, not being in the Customs Union or the Single Market will make it much more difficult to export to the EU? It makes no sense whatsoever.
Oh dear.
Ask the car manufacturers if leaving the single market makes things "much more difficult" then get back to us
McLaren have already relocated their carbon composites factory from a supplier in Austria to their own facility in Sheffield, onshoring a bunch of very skilled jobs in the process. These things work both ways. https://twitter.com/McLarenAuto/status/953536565707460608
I was hopeful for a nice soft Brexit yesterday, but those hopes have this morning been cruelly dashed. Talk of the 'Dream Team' has clearly rocked Therersa (perhaps there was more to that than met the eye) and is once again dancing to Leave Ultras' tune. But this endless see-sawing is doing untold harm. Theresa should just decide on what she wants to be and shape her government accordingly. If that means sacking Hammond and the rest of the cabinet softies and bringing in Rees-Mogg then so be it.
Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Don't do that - I might give you my support if you stay in!" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "Why don't you reconsider?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: I've heard you're reconsidering." Government: "We're leaving the customs union" Remainers: "What about a customs union that exactly mimics the customs union?" Government: "We're leaving the customs union and not replacing it with any other customs union" Remainers: "Oh my God they are all over the place!"
Where in the timeline is the moment the government signed up to maintain full alignment with the customs union?
I was fascinated by Leavers' response to my thread yesterday. Not a single Leaver sought to defend the way in which the government is approaching its decision-making process. There was a lot of annoyance with me, but no real challenge to the actual argument on that point.
What did you expect Alistair? Plaudits? Reasoned argument?
This is WW1 all over again - everyone in their trenches lobbing explosives at each other and neither side moving an inch.
I expected some kind of engagement with the argument. Instead there was a lot of "don't be beastly" posts from the usual snowflakes.
"What can I say I don't wanna play Any more What can I say I'm heading for the door I can't stand this emotional violence LEAVE in Silence"
Comments
The people haven't 'spoken', they maybe mumbled a bit.
Container ports shouldn't be an issue. Most goods there are unloaded by crane and can wait many hours before being collected by lorry, or hauled away by locomotive. So there is scope for inspections and paperwork, if required. Indeed, for non-EU imports it already happens.
Airport freight is varied, but not hugely. Consignment paperwork will be checked in freight terminals. It is a legal (safety) requirement for planes to list their cargo manifests in full. Goods will be scanned in the same way your baggage is every time you board, check-in, or collect from the carousel. That's how they spot smugglers for a "random" inspection; the x-ray shows up a huge hole in your bag if you're trying to sneak in 2,000 fags, and CCTV/customs officers then monitor who picks it up.
The issue is Northern Ireland, and Dover/Eurotunnel. There are something like 13-14k lorries going through there each day. Norway uses an IT system and comms network to register goods before they leave the warehouse. Auto-Numberplate Recognition (APNR)/CCTV at the border, with mobile customs units that can then intercept behind the border for anyone who is fishy.
I imagine we'd something similar and, as we're starting from scratch (sort of) the system can be designed accordingly. APNR can easily scan every numberplate - just as your car reg flashes up overhead for your 2-hours free parking every time you go to park at Sainsbury's. The challenge is integration of the IT, CCTV, ANPR, and database, via super-fast broadband, with a slick customs operation.
The key to success is close collaboration between the UK and EU on the new system. A new border agreement would require data-sharing on fraud, monitoring and interception. But I don't see that as a problem. The Sandhurst Treaty shows how practical Macron/May are.
I'd argue that's what the UK will try to do. It could take 5-10 years to fully implement such a system (IT infrastructure and training isn't quick) so I'd expect "a" customs agreement on alignment transition in the meantime, with a long-term plan for integration into a new UK customs clearance regime.
1/3rd voted the other way and the remaining 1/3rd either did not understand the question or simply could not be bothered to vote.
But clearly there is more to German industrial might than exchange rates so we should look at what else is involved that we might adopt from them. State holdings in industry, for instance; powerful workers' councils on company boards; female heads of government.
Ask the car manufacturers if leaving the single market makes things "much more difficult" then get back to us The EU has trade deals with much of the World, that we benefit from
This is not complicated stuff (unless you are a Brexiteer, obviously)
So I asked whether it is a cost, the price of which is worth paying (presumably) or whether there will be a Brexit bonus.
Can I ask the same question again?
https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/960462815915139073
Making it harder and more expensive for us to trade with our biggest export market will obviously lead to recalibration: some businesses will move to or open up operations in the EU, others will close down and others will redirect their focus to new markets. How long a process that will be remains to be seen - as does the damage it will do.
Let's focus, for instance, on car manufacturing, which is a highly integrated business involving much seamless tooing and froing across the Channel currently. If the Brexit deal we end up with makes it uneconomic to continue manufacturing in the UK, then plants that pay good wages and offer sustainable employment will close down. What will replace them in the places where that happens? What will happen to the communities that are affected? There are many parts of the UK that have yet to recover from the decline of heavy industry that occurred in the 1980s. How do we prevent that happening again?
Overall, the UK will grow, GDP will move forward. But it will be regionally. What happened in the 1980s was very good indeed for London and the South East, but the benefits were less magnificent elsewhere. If we really are saying goodbye to seamless trade with the EU, then we need a plan for what happens when the industries that currently depend on it close down. Where is that plan?
However, I would be very on board with other German policies: trade schools from 14, regional and investment banks, valued apprenticeship schemes etc.
ETA: Given the confusion in the Cabinet, perhaps the question cannot be understood. It is inexcusable that David Cameron held the referendum without nailing down what was involved.
The only model to suggest there might be is Patrick Minford’s which assumes we’ll be importing all our food from China and that we’ll need to close down the entire North of England.
Charles seems to be arguing that Brexit will benefit us in the hereafter. But we have long known Brexit was theology not reality.
A lot of hyperbole and posturing by Mrs May but she'll give into the reality of economic gravity.
"We are free of EU regulation, We have taken back control. Now is the time to simplify our laws and make a real bonfire of obsolete regulation which has held us back. Time for us all to work harder and longer (for less) to build Global Britain and to bring the very best (wealthiest) here, we will abolish corporation tax and reduce tax rates on higher incomes.
The world's finest will always be welcome on our shores and be sure there will always be someone with a smile to drive their cars, pour their coffee, clean their rooms and shine their shoes because that's what Global Britain in the 21st Century is about."
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/05/2018-fundraising-democrats-republicans-389868
Edit and we trade A LOT less with the people that we don't have close agreements than the one with whom we have the closest agreement that exists anywhere else in the world. The two might be linked
This whole debate is taking place with a level of hysteria that is both counterproductive and disproportionate with completely extravagant claims on both sides. It is a proxy for having a neverendum on EU membership. Its just absurd.
The cherry on the cake is that the political benefits of Brexit also gave material intangible value which make people feel better about the near term opportunity cost, but which are hard to include in an NPV analysis.
This is WW1 all over again - everyone in their trenches lobbing explosives at each other and neither side moving an inch.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-india-trade-germany-pushes-for-post-brexit-deal/
Lots of food comments this morning. A few observations:
1. The UK could be more self sufficient - a lot of non-UK produce on things we can grow here. Problem is that UK people tend not to work in the fields or food factories. Could incentivise them with more wages but that will push prices up somewhat significantly.
2. Industry margins are wafer thin and factories shut on a regular basis having gone bust. If a cheaper source was available it would already be used
3. Someone made the comment "don't we import from outside the EU"? Yes - quite a bit. Problem being the lack of capacity both physical and computerised to process more transactions through the ports
Brexiteer headbangers insist it will all be fine - and it might be in the longer run. Its what happens immediately after that terrifies the industry. They literally don't know how to keep things like fresh food on sale and how to prevent double digit price rises. Rhetoric from clueless ill-informed politicians and their supporters doesn't change the facts on the ground.
The SNP had 34.75% of the seats in 2012 to 35.1% of the seats in 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_local_elections,_2017
No deal, deal, financial passporting - the whole shebang is basically irrelevant.
And the effect on people's lives caused by the difference between 1% growth and no growth is quite significant for those existing on the margin - less so for (say) Charles ...or me.
As one exporter remarked 'The biggest trade barrier I've ever encountered was 'language''
Ian Dunt sums up this government's Brexit "strategy" well, I think:
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/960445377064456192
Life comes at you fast etc.
*They sound like Geordies, so they are Geordies in my eyes/ears
The remainers are out in force this morning fighting a rearguard action but the die is cast and I cannot see how TM can now change this decision without standing down and of course the result of that is likely to result in Boris or JRM becoming PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39850440
Given that the SNP, Labour and the Conservatives are super cautious about number of candidates (The Conservatives missed out on a number of gains in 2017 due to not fielding enough candidates in strong wards) I'd love to have a breakdown of where the notional councilors were lost to see if there are some wards where there would have been 3 notional SNP councillors goting down to 2
At the risk of agreeing with @Alastair_Meeks by far the biggest cost of Brexit is the distraction from the real issues we face. In the long run it will probably be worth it but years of government paralysis are undoubtedly a heavy price to pay.
https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/960468892933087232
Mrs May puts the anus in Janus.
By definition, you will struggle to reconcile both "long term" and "NPV positive" into any thought process, still less calculation. As for the political element, most social discount rates remain positive.
And what is that - and who gets to define it ?
Brexit has divided the country like nothing else has since the English Civil War. Even the Miner's Strike or the Winter of Discontent was less divisive.
- Since Theresa May ruled out staying in a Customs Union with the EU right from the start, and has been completely consistent on the point, and since Phil Hammond confirmed the point in his recent speech, the current frothing at the mouth from both sides on the issue is completely bonkers.
- Being outside the Customs Union has very little bearing on the customs infrastructure question at the Irish border. The UK government aim is to have an agreement with our EU friends which minimises paperwork, and which relies on mutual recognition of administrative processes. The uncertainty on whether this is attainable is entirely because the negotiations haven't started yet. The responsibility for the fact that they haven't started yet lies with the EU, who refused the UK's request to start them over a year ago.
- The criticism of Theresa May which would make sense is one which few people are making, namely that she was too clear and decisive on the subject precisely because she ruled out a Customs Union. My personal view is that this was a mistake, although of course Labour's GE2017 position was identical on this. Leaving the Single Market but entering a new Customs Union (on manufactured goods at least) would be consistent with the referendum result, since in particular it would mean we weren't bound to the freedom of movement rules, and it would be a big help to manufacturing industry (especially car manufacturing), although not to the City. The 52% didn't seem to want to prioritise the City, so that is respecting the referendum result. The downside is of course that we'd be unable to do much in the way of trade deals with non-EU countries other than those negotiated by the EU, and we'd have to stick to EU tariffs on manufactured goods at least. It's a trade-off, and IMO there's a very strong case that it's a trade-off worth taking, although others may disagree. Those arguing for an approach different from Theresa May's but respecting the referendum result should in my view have concentrated on this option. They didn't, they are still arguing for all sorts of incompatible alternatives, some of them quite unrealistic, so the PM's approach remains the only game in town.
But if we are leaving SM and CU only after transition period - then that is ages away...
If she can get agreement on a longer transition from the Brexiteers, with a promise that when we leave it is super hard Brexit - then she may be able to thread the needle.
"No - I’m saying in a 50 or hundred year view that UK will be a better place for not being part of the EU."
"Convenient that none of us is likely to around to call you out on that judgment, though."
I went to Wembley in 1985 to see my team, Boston, lose 2 - 1 to Wealdstone in the FA Trophy final. Yet just before the second Wealdstone goal, the ball definitely went out of play. Had the linesman seen it, the goal would never have happened, and with Boston on top at the time, we'd probably have won.
In fifty years time, the score will still be 2 - 1 to Wealdstone, even if I don't accept it. A bit like the referendum result for you, really.
Remainers: "Don't do that - I might give you my support if you stay in!"
Government: "We're leaving the customs union"
Remainers: "Why don't you reconsider?"
Government: "We're leaving the customs union"
Remainers: I've heard you're reconsidering."
Government: "We're leaving the customs union"
Remainers: "What about a customs union that exactly mimics the customs union?"
Government: "We're leaving the customs union and not replacing it with any other customs union"
Remainers: "Oh my God they are all over the place!"
https://twitter.com/McLarenAuto/status/953536565707460608
In a recess of your mind, Mr Glenn.
"When the one great scorer comes to mark against your name,
He marks not whether you won or lost,
But how you played the game."
A red card for the Remainers on both counts.
I don't wanna play
Any more
What can I say
I'm heading for the door
I can't stand this emotional violence
LEAVE in Silence"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVu6Wihbp4Q