Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Rough_Justice

More proof that forecasts of doom and gloom have so far proven wrong.
£15bn boost to UK growth as watchdog set for embarrassing U-turn

The Office for Budget Responsibility is set for an embarrassing U-turn as it prepares to dramatically hike forecasts for UK growth just months after they were suddenly downgraded.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/02/25/hammond-set-15bn-windfall-economic-forecasts-upgraded/

No doubt this will immediately be dismissed by the Europhiles here.
Well it's not pro-EU, is it?

Herzlos

Lornapink wrote: »

1) No deal, no UK divorce fee paid.

Divorce payment is in no way linked to a deal, despite what May keeps saying. It's to do the split, and a deal with come after.

Exactly how will European business have benefited from all this?

They won't, and have never said they will.
However they feel the cost is not worth it, and would rather mitigate the damage to protect the single market.

Yup; EU businesses are willing to suffer a bit financially for political/moral reasons. Just like 52% of us.


If your argument held any water, when are you expecting these manufacturers, who have told us they aen't going to help us, to come to our rescue?

Rough_Justice

ilovehouses wrote: »

There's some truth to what you say but I think you're over-egging it.

For example BMW could take a hit and they'd certainly prefer a deal which is beneficial to them - that's obvious. However, the reason you've not seen car workers and tomato growers march on Brussels as you predicted is because they think they have, and will, benefit from being in the EU so are pretty sanguine about it all.

Test the argument in the UK. Plenty of businesses not happy about brexit and if they, say, argue for a customs union they're shouted down by people with red faces. Why would tomato pickers in Spain be in any better lobbying position.

You should maybe do exactly that yourself.

Only 12% of our economy is trade with the EU and yet you appear to suggest that their arguing for a customs union should receive more attention that your alluded-to Spanish tomato pickers would in Brussels.
That, simply, is pure nonsense.

Rinoa

Filo25 wrote: »

the ERG are destroying May here, putting out demands they know full well aren't likely to be accepted by the EU and realistically falling back to WTO terms isn't getting through parliament, no matter how much Brexit evangelicals bang on about betrayal.

Does it need to get through parliament?

We're leaving March 29 2019. If we don't agree a deal with the EU, there's nothing for Parliament to vote on.

The default position is then WTO.

Sounds good to me.

Rough_Justice

ilovehouses wrote: »

Most people would read Tracey's post and conclude offence has been caused by people having the audacity to have an opinion about the future.

Don't see any bullying or any lying.

In other words no, that poster didn't say it was offensive.
Your statement was then incorrect.

Theophile

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

There's two words they often forget about. Gibralter was ceded to Britain IN PERPETUITY.

Hong Kong was also ceded IN PERPETUITY.

Rough_Justice

Since some Europhiles on here insist opinion is okay, try this opinion.
Now the fog has lifted, the UK’s post-Brexit future looks bright

The best trade policy is unilateral free trade that allows us to set our own deals where the action is.

About half of this year’s growth in the global economy comes from emerging Asian economies. Some 12 per cent of our economy is trade with the EU, and only eight per cent of firms sell directly to the EU’s Single Market – but 100 per cent of the economy is subject to EU regulation.

Half of UK trade is already on WTO terms, and it is worth noting that trade in data and other services, where we have an £80bn surplus is, greater than trade in widgets. In that sense, the world is our oyster.

Beijing, not Brussels, is where it’s at. Even the European Commission itself acknowledges that 90 per cent of global trade growth is expected to come outside of the EU.

http://www.cityam.com/281199/now-fog-has-lifted-uks-post-brexit-future-looks-bright

Rough_Justice

Theophile wrote: »

Hong Kong was also ceded IN PERPETUITY.

That's not quite true though is it?

Hong Kong's territory was acquired from three separate treaties: the Treaty of Nanking in 1842, the Convention of Peking in 1860, and The Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory in 1898, which gave the UK the control of Hong Kong Island, Kowloon (area south of Boundary Street), and the New Territories (area north of Boundary Street and south of the Sham Chun River, and outlying islands), respectively.

Although Hong Kong Island and Kowloon had been ceded to the United Kingdom in perpetuity, the control on the New Territories was a 99-year lease. The finite nature of the 99-year lease did not hinder Hong Kong's development as the New Territories were combined as a part of Hong Kong.

However, by 1997, it was impractical to separate the three territories and only return the New Territories. In addition, with the scarcity of land and natural resources in Hong Kong Island and Kowloon, the New Territories were being developed with large-scale infrastructures and other developments, with the break-even day lying well past 30 June 1997. Thus, the status of the New Territories after the expiry of the 99-year lease became important for Hong Kong's economic development.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_sovereignty_over_Hong_Kong

Theophile

Rough_Justice wrote: »

That's not quite true though is it?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_sovereignty_over_Hong_Kong

Your link confirms what I said.

You cut and pasted quite a bit there, I hope it passes guidance on copyright infringement.

Rough_Justice

Theophile wrote: »

Your link confirms what I said.

You cut and pasted quite a bit there, I hope it passes guidance on copyright infringement.

No it does not.
You appear to have a difficulty with basic comprehension.

"a 99-year lease." is not the same as "in perpetuity.
Just as a short excerpt is not the same as swathes being cut and pasted.
Yet more attempted baiting from you I note.
Habitual when you have no accurate or appropriate response it seems and evidence of an inability to effectively debate.