Carney does a u-turn!

KingS6

Ballard wrote: »

The thing is that Vote Leave lead us to believe that we'd have dozens of countries banging on our door to sign trade deals. It's clearly far too early to judge at this point as we are unable to sign anything but the signs are less than encouraging. I'm not aware of any country who have said that their priority is Britain but several have said the opposite.

It's all very well saying that big business and banks wanted to stay in and that we shouldn't have let them sway our vote but these are the companies who pay our wages.

If the worst case scenario happens and every Japanese company switches their European base to within the EU then that's 140,000 jobs gone. I don't personally think that we would lose every job but there's serious potential for multiple tens of thousands to go.

If car manufacturing leaves for the EU it's likely to go forever. As I understand it, finance is our biggest industry. If a passporting deal can't be sorted then why would international banks have a huge base here? I know that it's trendy to say good riddance to them but they employ a lot of people who pay a lot of taxes. What's in it for Paris or Frankfurt to allow UK based banks to trade freely within the EU?

Airbus and European research centres (particularly pharmaceutical) are very likely to disappear.

On the plus side we won't have to worry about EU health and safety regulation once we leave!

As a remainer, however, I'm not calling for a rerun of the vote. The nation decided and we will have to stick with it. That nice Mr. Farage is on record as having said that if it was close he would demand a new vote but that has been forgotten by every one of his disciples.

Don't forget the EU directive that said a small working class business owner must write "contains fish" on the packs of Salmon he sells. Costs him 4k a year too.

The beauty of it is we can keep the EU laws we deem we want and further enshrine them into UK law. The ones we don't want we can do away with. Win, win.

By the way, the UK hasn't followed every EU health & safety regulation anyway. The EU Council declared the guidlines the UK follows for mobile phone radiation to be obsolete and whilst other EU countries came up to speed, the UK continues to use the old standard.

Pincher

I thought a carny was a circus hand that comes to town, and then moves on when the show's over.

You can't be a blatant mouthpiece for the incumbent government, and then carry on living in the country after all the dis-information and propaganda.

He must have a golden shake and a witness protection program in the Cayman Islands, all ready to go.

Actually, doesn't the Cayman Islands have a governor?
Nice job to move on to.

Ballard

So we're simply ignoring the fact that there are no positive signs of trade deals at this early stage then are we, Brexiters? Jolly good.

atush

Mark Carney was right to be afraid of Brexit re the economy.

The pound fell, quantative easing has restarted, and there was an immediate damper on the economy re consumer spending and business investment.

Sure, the pound falling has seen a short term boost to exports lately, but if tariffs are added post brexit this wont carry on into the future.

AS far as I can see, Carney called the immediate effect correctly. No one knows yet what the long term will bring us.

EnglishMohican

Ballard wrote: »

So we're simply ignoring the fact that there are no positive signs of trade deals at this early stage then are we, Brexiters? Jolly good.

Why are you ignoring Australia's stated wish to have a trade deal as soon as possible?

Its value to us is something I do not know but it is a positive sign of a trade deal - which seems to answer your question.

Ballard

Ashen wrote: »

I think that sentence perfectly sums up the quality of logic on display in that post and views.

I suspect that that sort of comment is typical of many Brexiters. I'm not saying all but I believe that a significant number didn't care about trade deals. The most important subject for a large number of voters was immigration and they felt that that was such an important issue that trade became n more than a side issue.

I've said all along that I expect us to have to accept free movement of people for new trade deals with the EU and I've seen nothing to dissuade me from that view. If so then it would be ironic as we will have lost our veto on Turkey joining (remember that this is imminent!) so there could well be more of a chance of 70 million Turks turning up now.

I mentioned to an ex work colleague last week that our car plants could be shifted to Germany over the next decade. His response was that that could never happen because Germany doesn't have the skills to manufacture cars. That's odd because one of the biggest Leave arguments was that Germany would be desperate for a deal so that they could sell us their cars.


I should emphasise that I am not saying that anyone on here is racist. What I am saying is that I feel that immigration played a big part in the vote for the population in general. I don't recall any posts on here that I would consider racist and this post isn't directed at anyone on here at all.

Ballard

EnglishMohican wrote: »

Why are you ignoring Australia's stated wish to have a trade deal as soon as possible?

Its value to us is something I do not know but it is a positive sign of a trade deal - which seems to answer your question.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/07/no-free-trade-deal-until-brexit-settled-australian-minister-steven-ciobo

Australia’s trade minister has told the UK that any post-Brexit trade deal between the nations will have to wait for his country to complete parallel negotiations with the European Union.

Steven Ciobo said it would most likely be at least two-and-a-half years before formal Australia-UK talks could begin, as Britain would have to complete its exit from the EU before this happened.
Ciobo, in London for talks with the international trade secretary, Liam Fox, said a deal with the EU would be placed first. “It will,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “And that’s a consequence of the fact that discussions with the European Union are more advanced than they are with the UK.”

However, Ciobo did say that preliminary talks could take place, to speed the process once it did begin.

EnglishMohican

I read the article when it was written and questioned the presentation by the Guardian writer.

In summary the man himself said that an agreement that is well advanced (the one with the EU) may be finished before one that has not started to be negotiated yet. Well that is a big surprise. (My "may" as the way the EU agrees these things their negotiations could go on for ever.)

He also says that negotiations with the British cannot start for perhaps 2 and a half years because the British will not be free to negotiate until then (not because he does not want to) but we can have preliminary talks. That is hardly a sign that he is not positive about wanting an agreement, despite the Guardian presentation.

His current boss is reported as very enthusiastic to get an agreement.

What would you consider to be a positive sign if you do not count this as one.

le_loup

EnglishMohican wrote: »

Why are you ignoring Australia's stated wish to have a trade deal as soon as possible?

Population of Australia = 23M
Population of EU ex UK = 444M

Good trade off.

EnglishMohican

But it is not meant to be the complete trade off and I certainly did not suggest it was. It is one positive sign which is what Ballard was asking for. There are hints of other deals including (I seem to remember) with China.

By your measure, a deal with China would be a truely excellent trade-off though I have my doubts.