Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Lornapink

I said Trump would impose tariffs on the EU in order to force European nations to commit to 2% of GDP to military spend (as well as to reduce US trade deficit by selling more military kit to Europe).


I argued UK could use this as leverage by implying to the EU behind the scenes we will back Trump's calls for European nations to commit to the 2% military spend.

Some of you told me this was a nonsense theory, that military spending wont form part of the Brexit negotiation.
I assure you it will.
EU wants to cherry pick our military projection whilst not paying it's 2% commitment.

Lornapink

Arklight wrote: »

Welcome back Lorna!


You may also ask why the governing party of Leave failed to gain enough seats to form a new government.

The Lib Dems have lost a lot of supporters who just can't stand the Tories anymore, so have moved to Labour to ensure the best chance of getting them out.

Most of us also accept the result of the referendum, but the devil in the Tory detail is very different to Labour's.

Remainers claim the economy is at risk from Brexit.
Corbyn more dangerous for markets than hard Brexit, warns Morgan Stanley


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/11/27/corbyn-dangerous-markets-hard-brexit-warns-morgan-stanley/

ukcarper

ilovehouses wrote: »

That's not due to the EU (and I never said it was) but the EU can claim some part in providing that stability. The EU is evidence that once upon a time 28 nations wanted to work together to agree common standards, sharing costs and creating one of the world's biggest regional free trade area.

The concern is that appears no longer to be the case. In fact, some short-sighted souls appear to be gleeful as they gather 'evidence' of growing anti-EU sentiment.

ilovehouses wrote: »

I told you were wrong and why. That's not trolling.

Trying to pretend progress slowed dramatically in 1974 is because it's easier to argue we haven't progressed whilst in the EU rather than arguing progress is in spite of being in the EU.

I'm certainly not Anti EU but I suspect we would have done well outside of EU and the increase in standard of living and working conditions would have happened anyway. I didn't imply progress slowed when we joined the EU just that it started before. Things Have certainly been going backwards over the last decade but I don't put that down to EU.

gfplux

This latest report from a Commons Select Committee.

Looks like project fear to me.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/international-trade-committee/news-parliament-2017/eu-trade-agreement-after-brexit-report-publication-17-19/

QUOTE
Legally watertight and practically viable strategy
Trade with 70 nations risks falling off a cliff edge if the Government does not act quickly to roll over EU trade deals, the International Trade Committee has found.

A report by the Committee calls on the Department for International Trade to produce "a legally watertight and practically viable strategy" to achieve "transitional adoption" of trade agreements the UK is currently party to through its membership of the European Union.

The Government still needs to work out a number of important details before continuity can be achieved !!!8211; and businesses, consumers, investors need certainty on what will happen to the trade deals as a matter of urgency.

Key tasks
In its assessment of the Government's work to date, and the key tasks which lie ahead, the Committee has concluded:

The exact number of EU trade and trade-related agreements appears to be a matter of some uncertainty. The Committee concluded that there is an urgent need for clarity over the number, type, scope, extent and importance of the EU's trade-related agreements.
DIT has identified rolling over EU trade agreements as its second highest priority and taken up the task at ministerial level, but there is still a disturbing lack of precision and clarity about the appropriate legal mechanism.
The Committee welcomes the Government's new approach of asking that the UK be treated during the post-Brexit transition as if it were still an EU member for the purposes of these agreements. But this is seen by the Committee as a tacit admission by the Government that its initial policy of negotiating new agreements by March 2019 may not be achieved. The Government is urged to ensure that appropriate resources are allocated to the task of rolling over the agreements.
Substantive amendments to rolled-over trade agreements will almost certainly be required, as the Government itself has effectively acknowledged.
The Committee recommends that the Government should set out provisions for more extensive parliamentary scrutiny and enhanced involvement by the devolved administrations where substantial changes in trade agreements are implemented through legislation.
A cross-departmental approach on the part of the Government to all of the above issues, which involves DIT, the Brexit department and the devolved administrations (among others) is urgently needed.
END QUOTE

LHW99

Useful comments from the Director of the British Chambers of Commerce
https://www.businesswest.co.uk/blog/adam-marshalls-speech-british-chambers-commerce-conference-2018

mrginge

gfplux wrote: »

Looks like project fear to me.

Speaking of which, can we have an update on the true horror list please.

Arklight

Lornapink wrote: »

Remainers claim the economy is at risk from Brexit.
Corbyn more dangerous for markets than hard Brexit, warns Morgan Stanley


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/11/27/corbyn-dangerous-markets-hard-brexit-warns-morgan-stanley/

It's not a particular surprise that the City doesn't want a Labour government, considering how much money they spend trying to ensure a Tory one.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-how-the-city-bankrolls-tory-party-2208668.html

Lornapink

gfplux wrote: »

This latest report from a Commons Select Committee.

Looks like project fear to me.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/international-trade-committee/news-parliament-2017/eu-trade-agreement-after-brexit-report-publication-17-19/

QUOTE
Legally watertight and practically viable strategy
Trade with 70 nations risks falling off a cliff edge if the Government does not act quickly to roll over EU trade deals, the International Trade Committee has found.

A

Approach 1) Throw our hands in air, give up, claim such things are beyond Human capability (Project Fear preferred approach)


Approach 2) Recognise reality is merely Human made and thus Human changed.

Lornapink

Arklight wrote: »

It's not a particular surprise that the City doesn't want a Labour government, considering how much money they spend trying to ensure a Tory one.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-how-the-city-bankrolls-tory-party-2208668.html

The City backed Remain, you agreed.
The City warns Labour is a bigger rick than Brexit, you ignore.

buglawton

Lornapink wrote: »

I said Trump would impose tariffs on the EU in order to force European nations to commit to 2% of GDP to military spend (as well as to reduce US trade deficit by selling more military kit to Europe).


I argued UK could use this as leverage by implying to the EU behind the scenes we will back Trump's calls for European nations to commit to the 2% military spend.

Some of you told me this was a nonsense theory, that military spending wont form part of the Brexit negotiation.
I assure you it will.
EU wants to cherry pick our military projection whilst not paying it's 2% commitment.

Talking of cherry picking:
There are 1 million Ukrainians in Poland! They are being used to fill the gaps left by Poles departing for places like... the UK.
http://www.france24.com/en/20180108-focus-ukraine-poland-immigration-european-union-work-employment-economy-wages

Where does this immigration-by-proxy end? And it's proof positive that the EUs current FOM stance (plus that cherry picking for others but not the UK) is suppressing wages over here - because Poles' wages are being pushed down by Ukrainians. The EU might just as well let the Ukraine join too. Oh wait...

More solid reasons that a firm Brexit is correct.