Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Here's Junckers, the epitome of EU dignity:

http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/22/european-commission-president-lets-off-massive-mouth-fart-when-asked-about-theresa-may-6208662/

Yup, dignified.
:rotfl:

Didn't you complain about someone posting year old links, about 4 pages back?

Thrugelmir

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

There's one party coming across as dignified in this whole mess, and it isn't the UK.

Intransigence isn't dignified. Anybody can be bloody minded. Particularly if they have concerns for their pet project. The cracks in the united front will show in due course.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

So are you saying that we'll continue to build UK cars to EU standards? Because that's what we're currently doing.

No, I am saying that we already make many things to many different standards for export around the globe. Combined with the fact that less than half of our exports go to other EU countries, there is little to suggest any change will necessarily be significant.

Herzlos wrote: »

Didn't you complain about someone posting year old links, about 4 pages back?

As being an irrelevant outdated post, but this is relevant and current is it not?
Or do you deny either that Junckers did that OR that it was directed at Theresa May whilst at an EU leader's summit?

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

You mean divorce bill?

You can totally frame it the other way round too. How dignified is it to ask for a departing member to pay for it's commitments and ensure that your citizens don't have any reduction in rights?

Of course, the answer is somewhere in the middle. The EU isn't asking us to give citizens more than they already have, or asking us to pay them off. What the real number should be is going to be part of the debate.

No one can reasonably argue that the UK should not honour its commitments. Of course it should. But there seems to be a huge gap between the two sides and the EU have not yet explained why they think we owe them more than we have committed to or answered David Davis's question about the legal basis for their demands.

The question of citizens' rights is pretty simple. Would the EU demand that citizens of the EU resident in the USA have greater rights than US citizens and that the ECJ should have jurisdiction over them? Of course it wouldn't. There is no reason why the UK should accept this demand.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm not sure which ones we actually need to build different currently, I know the US market has pretty strict emissions requirements, but we sell almost nothing over there.

Really?

Growth was strong across a number of markets, notably the US – the UK’s biggest export destination after the EU – where demand rose by almost half (47.2%) meaning it now accounts for around 14.5% of all UK car exports.

https://www.smmt.co.uk/2017/01/17-year-high-british-car-manufacturing-global-demand-hits-record-levels/

That's a pretty significant - and already-increasing - "almost nothing".

gfplux

Herzlos wrote: »

I don't think we need to export more than we import from any of them in order to prosper, but as Conrad keeps saying we need to try and balance our import:export ratio overall.

So the question is, for each of those countries, what are we planning on getting out of the free trade deals?

Are there export markets we can expand into? Are there access to goods at better prices?

What do we want from those countries and what do those countries want from us?

Will growth from these deals counter any potential contraction with EU trade?

Are we planning on doing anything to try and make Just-In-Time stock any easier with countries that are so far away? Do we just need too abandon the Just-In-Time model and go back to warehousing months worth of stock at a time, with associated costs?

I'm not saying there's anything wrong in trying to expand into these markets, and to try and open up trade deals. But I genuinely don't see how any of these markets can compensate for the potential losses from the EU markets we seem keen to throw away through mismanagement. We should be trading with these people, on top of the EU (using the EU negotiated trade deals), rather than abandoning the EU for trade with these countries.

Thank you for taking this seriously.
So much of the Brexit arguments are sound bites and now we are 625 days to make the deal we need to see what the specific opportunities are so that Industry can plan, invest and tool up to take advantage of the opportunity.

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

No, I am saying that we already make many things to many different standards for export around the globe. Combined with the fact that less than half of our exports go to other EU countries, there is little to suggest any change will necessarily be significant.

And I'm saying that by adding *another* market, we're going to have to add *another* set of rules to comply to. Or can we can not add another market by just aping the EU.

As being an irrelevant outdated post, but this is relevant and current is it not?

Did you read the article or the date it was posted?

It's fairly obvious you didn't, because he's talking about A50 being triggered in the future.

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Really?

https://www.smmt.co.uk/2017/01/17-year-high-british-car-manufacturing-global-demand-hits-record-levels/

That's a pretty significant - and already-increasing - "almost nothing".

Good point, from our POV it's a big market (doubled since about 2012), but from the US market we're pretty tiny, as the 6th in the list of importers.

So I retract my statement about being "almost nothing". I don't believe we build things differently for the US market, though? In that EU spec cars pass the US regulations for the most part?

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

No one can reasonably argue that the UK should not honour its commitments. Of course it should. But there seems to be a huge gap between the two sides and the EU have not yet explained why they think we owe them more than we have committed to or answered David Davis's question about the legal basis for their demands.

The question of citizens' rights is pretty simple. Would the EU demand that citizens of the EU resident in the USA have greater rights than US citizens and that the ECJ should have jurisdiction over them? Of course it wouldn't. There is no reason why the UK should accept this demand.

There is certainly a huge gap, the EU have given us an estimated bill, pending negotiations. David Davis has insisted we won't be paying a penny. I can't help but feel the EU is being more reasonable, even if they did give us a high-ball figure.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

And I'm saying that by adding *another* market, we're going to have to add *another* set of rules to comply to. Or can we can not add another market by just aping the EU.
Does that change in any way the fact that we already adhere to multiple different standards? Do you have any evidence that *another* set of rules would increase costs significantly from those already incurred? Are costs not inbuilt before supply?



Did you read the article or the date it was posted?
Did Junckers "Pfft" or not?
It's fairly obvious you didn't, because he's talking about A50 being triggered in the future.

Irrelevant - it demonstrates very admirably the lack of dignity shown by Junckers, "dignity" being what was discussed.
Would you perhaps prefer the more-recent example of his "dignity" during the recent Strasbourg debacle?