Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

Yes productivity is rising but not as much as that of the other G7 nations. This country still has a productivity issue.

And wages are rising but more slowly than in many major economies.

Without one you won't get the other.

Weaning people off Mr Browns welfare state is a long arduous process.

wunferall

Herzlos wrote: »

So there's a bit more information on what sort of trade deal red lines the US will have:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-us-trade-deal-uk-wish-list-representative-negotiations-chlorine-washed-chicken-tariffs-a8292006.html

I'm not going to quote it but there's a lot. Most of it about relaxing rules on animal welfare and food standards that "harm trade".

What do people think about it?

What do I think? Well it's from the Independent for a start which is a bit of a misnomer since they push a "remain" stance.

Then I note that it's a "wish list" and NOT a set of firm guidelines. For example the USTR would like to reduce some standards. That's not the same as actually reducing them, is it? Much could happen to stop the suggestion before it even gets as far as being planned - like outrage from US consumers just for one example.

Also of course nobody either in the USA or here in the UK actually forces the consumer to buy anything. We are both fortunate in already having available a vast choice of what we buy and where we buy it from.

Nobody forces UK buyers to purchase chlorine-washed bags of prepared salad produce yet millions choose to do so on a daily basis. Nobody forces UK buyers to eat French force-fed goose products like pate foie gras. Nobody grumbled at the EU allowing livestock transportation in horrendous conditions and then stopped eating the resulting produce, did they? Nobody even told EU consumers about pesticide-tainted eggs until long after it became a problem or about products illicitly containing horsemeat either, so let's not pretend that the EU's record is exactly good.

So, what do I think about it? I think it's yet another remainer-induced non-story trying to prove that Brexit was wrong - and failing.

Herzlos

wunferall wrote: »

What do I think? Well it's from the Independent for a start which is a bit of a misnomer since they push a "remain" stance.

Then I note that it's a "wish list" and NOT a set of firm guidelines. For example the USTR would like to reduce some standards. That's not the same as actually reducing them, is it? Much could happen to stop the suggestion before it even gets as far as being planned - like outrage from US consumers just for one example.

Also of course nobody either in the USA or here in the UK actually forces the consumer to buy anything. We are both fortunate in already having available a vast choice of what we buy and where we buy it from.

Nobody forces UK buyers to purchase chlorine-washed bags of prepared salad produce yet millions choose to do so on a daily basis. Nobody forces UK buyers to eat French force-fed goose products like pate foie gras. Nobody grumbled at the EU allowing livestock transportation in horrendous conditions and then stopped eating the resulting produce, did they? Nobody even told EU consumers about pesticide-tainted eggs until long after it became a problem or about products illicitly containing horsemeat either, so let's not pretend that the EU's record is exactly good.

So, what do I think about it? I think it's yet another remainer-induced non-story trying to prove that Brexit was wrong - and failing.

Yes it's a wish list, but how many concessions do you think we'll give them? Who's in the position if power?

We won't be forced to buy chlorine chicken in the way you are implying. Market forces may make it hard to avoid, especially if it doesn't need labelled. If it's cheaper, local farmers may afoot the same approach to remain competitive, and it can end up in pre-prepared food and restaurants etc.

The other risk is that regulatory divergence from the eu doesn't fit with free movement of goods - it'd mean customs checks to prevent banned goods going into the eu.

wunferall

You say you want honest debate? Okay I will take you at your word.

Herzlos wrote: »

Yes it's a wish list, but how many concessions do you think we'll give them? Who's in the position if power?

Don't you understand how these things work? What makes you think it's about power - you're implying that one part in effect bullies the other and that is not how deals are arranged.

The reality is that both parties have red-line areas and areas open to negotiation. Therefore both sides will make the concessions they feel necessary to obtain what is wanted. Neither side wins and neither side loses, both should get what they want - or there is no deal. In which case nobody has lost anything since business continues as before, in the case of the USA under WTO rules.

Herzlos wrote: »

We won't be forced to buy chlorine chicken in the way you are implying. Market forces may make it hard to avoid, especially if it doesn't need labelled. If it's cheaper, local farmers may afoot the same approach to remain competitive, and it can end up in pre-prepared food and restaurants etc.

At least you agree now that the UK won't be forced into chlorine-washed chicken. Hallelujah. Market forces are determined by consumers. So unless consumers are willing to accept such changes it's not going to happen, whether it's in pre-prepared food or elsewhere. If consumers aren't happy with labels not detailing where food comes from they have a choice of whether or not to buy it, just as they do now.

Aldi & Lidl are examples of this, with many of their products not having a country of origin detailed. It hasn't stopped their march upwards in terms of sales to the detriment of the "big four" has it?
(I refer to general produce BTW as opposed to fresh meat, which in the UK must by law have a country of origin. EU law does not make such country of origin labelling compulsory; see Directive 2000/13/EC. That means that often EU foods don't say where they are from.)

Herzlos wrote: »

The other risk is that regulatory divergence from the eu doesn't fit with free movement of goods - it'd mean customs checks to prevent banned goods going into the eu.

Now it looks like you're quibbling with more "if"'s.

Foodstuffs already enter the EU from countries globally. Nowadays things are a little more advanced, with such goods having their contents declared (and so being approved) before movement. That's how the eggs and horsemeat scandals went on for so long before action was taken and very clearly shows it as in internal problem far more than an extra-EU problem.

The simple answer of course is that manufacturers undertake to only supply approved products.


Regarding the USA specifically (and despite the media carp) my personal suspicion is that the USA might well look to the UK as an ally against what it sees as increasing unfairness from China, the EU and Russia. Should Russia and China improve their relationship (as has been suggested) this USA stance will soon be seen and we already know that Trump sees the EU as being extremely protectionist. (Yes, here's another but) IF China continue on their path of unfair imbalance in trade who knows what the repercussions could be?

A USA/UK deal has the potential to lead to the biggest global trade economy with the possibility of retaining that position for some considerable time. By GDP, USA/UK = $22.2 trillion; EU = $17.7 trillion; China $11.2 trillion.

No, I'm not saying that this will happen or even that it's a possibility but who can really say how events will turn out even over the coming year? It is however quite interesting that China have asked for EU support in opposing USA restrictions. The coming months will prove interesting.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

I'll have a look and report back. I'm not pro-EU though.

I'm looking forward to this report back.

You can take a pro or anti-EU stance if you wish.

gfplux

Herzlos wrote: »

I think that horse Is long dead I'm afraid; you're not going to get a convincing answer because there isn't one.

I honestly doubt Leave would have won had the details been known, but I'm also not expecting a 2nd referendum since that would go again "the will of the people", and there's no time left for it. We're going to leave, at least in name. We'll probably re-join later but we'll need to wait and see!

Agreed.

Talking of popular culture I suspect the phrase WILL OF THE PEOPLE is going to be used in many interesting situations in the future. A possibility that it will come to bite in the backside some politicians who have used it liberally to further their personal short term interests is highly likely.

gfplux

mrginge wrote: »

Hello.

Can I remind you of the forum rules regarding spam-



Those people who may still not have you ignore may be getting bored of the same question being posted over and over again. I would remind them of the spam button located under each post.

Thank you Mr Ginge.
That is very helpful.

phillw

wunferall wrote: »

Don't you understand how these things work? What makes you think it's about power - you're implying that one part in effect bullies the other and that is not how deals are arranged.

That is how deals are arranged. The US and China are currently negotiating.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/business/us-china-trade-endgame.html
U.S. and China Play Chicken on Trade, and Neither Swerves

The EU has protected us from having to do that for a long time.

The leave vote was driven by a sense of injustice, that it wasn't fair that a country as great as ours wasn't able to be the bully it once was. Boris Johnson and Jacob Reese Mogg can't wait to turn back the clock.

wunferall wrote: »

Regarding the USA specifically (and despite the media carp) my personal suspicion is that the USA might well look to the UK as an ally against what it sees as increasing unfairness from China, the EU and Russia.

Trump doesn't want a trade deficit with anyone, including the UK. All the time he is in power then any trade deals are only one way. That is what he is promising the people who put him in power anyway.

You can't expect that the UK government will listen to the will of the UK people, but the US government will ignore the will of the US people. That is why it's so much better when you get rid of sovereignty and put everyone in the same boat.

Thrugelmir

phillw wrote: »

U.S. and China Play Chicken on Trade, and Neither Swerves

Like the UK. The US has a considerable balance of trade deficit. Trump does appear to be making the right moves to repatriate business back to the US. Love him or hate him. He sees the Chinese game and wants to do something about it.

Herzlos

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Like the UK. The US has a considerable balance of trade deficit. Trump does appear to be making the right moves to repatriate business back to the US. Love him or hate him. He sees the Chinese game and wants to do something about it.

Trump plays a good game of pretending to repatriate stuff, I'm not sure he's a really done any.