Will Brexit happen?

Sailtheworld

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Sailtheworld said:

We'll show 'em in Brussels as we head into a brave new World where we agree trade deals with the long queue of countries waiting in eager anticipation.

The government has estimated a post-Brexit trade deal with the United States would boost the UK economy by 0.16% over the next 15 years.

What a joke. You lot were duped.

The Guardian are trying to claim that a "comprehensive" trade deal will be worth just 0.16% growth. Therefore there's effectively no benefit to having a US trade deal (apparently).

However, not having one with the EU will apparently be catastrophic. So why is it pretty much worthless to have a comprehensive trade deal with the worlds largest economy, but critical and lucrative to have one with the worlds third largest bloc?

You won't like the answer, It's geographical proximity. I should make this my signature but most international trade takes place between near neighbours under FTAs.

The EU is really close so it's easier to trade items from the top and bottom of the value chain. The trading of perishables is also somewhat less problematic. You don't have to go far to build an analogy about whether the next door neighbours have the potential to impact your life more than those two streets over.

Try a thought experiment - in an alternative reality Corbyn won the election and announces a wondrous trade deal - after 15 years the economy will be 0.16% bigger as a result. Do you 
(a) Smile contentedly. That'll be a nice bit of extra light on the uplands?
(b) Split your sides laughing; more than likely following through?

The answer is (b) so why does the answer turn into (a) just because Boris gets substituted for Corbyn in the sentence above?

You're one of the smart ones so I'm sure you know the answer. The others on here neither know nor care.

Moe_The_Bartender

Sailtheworld said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Sailtheworld said:

We'll show 'em in Brussels as we head into a brave new World where we agree trade deals with the long queue of countries waiting in eager anticipation.

The government has estimated a post-Brexit trade deal with the United States would boost the UK economy by 0.16% over the next 15 years.

What a joke. You lot were duped.

The Guardian are trying to claim that a "comprehensive" trade deal will be worth just 0.16% growth. Therefore there's effectively no benefit to having a US trade deal (apparently).

However, not having one with the EU will apparently be catastrophic. So why is it pretty much worthless to have a comprehensive trade deal with the worlds largest economy, but critical and lucrative to have one with the worlds third largest bloc?

You won't like the answer, It's geographical proximity. I should make this my signature but most international trade takes place between near neighbours under FTAs.

If geographical proximity is so important, how is it that European countries and the USA have traded successfully with countries is East Asia for 70 years? How is it that the tern never cropped up in negotiations between the EU and the UK until a couple of weeks ago?  Did the EU suddenly realise that a potentially serious competitor was just offshore?

Or is it that this cynical bunch just decided to try to gain leverage by putting it on their shopping list with other irrelevances like 'illegally obtained artefacts', the status of Gibraltar and dynamic alignment?

They haven’t yet realised that we have left their protectionist club. Either they want an agreement with us or they don’t. Either way is fine with me but if they are serious, they need to get real.

Proximity works both ways and maybe the UK should remind our friendly neighbours who their biggest customer is.

Sailtheworld

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Sailtheworld said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Sailtheworld said:

We'll show 'em in Brussels as we head into a brave new World where we agree trade deals with the long queue of countries waiting in eager anticipation.

The government has estimated a post-Brexit trade deal with the United States would boost the UK economy by 0.16% over the next 15 years.

What a joke. You lot were duped.

The Guardian are trying to claim that a "comprehensive" trade deal will be worth just 0.16% growth. Therefore there's effectively no benefit to having a US trade deal (apparently).

However, not having one with the EU will apparently be catastrophic. So why is it pretty much worthless to have a comprehensive trade deal with the worlds largest economy, but critical and lucrative to have one with the worlds third largest bloc?

You won't like the answer, It's geographical proximity. I should make this my signature but most international trade takes place between near neighbours under FTAs.

If geographical proximity is so important, how is it that European countries and the USA have traded successfully with countries is East Asia for 70 years? How is it that the tern never cropped up in negotiations between the EU and the UK until a couple of weeks ago?  Did the EU suddenly realise that a potentially serious competitor was just offshore?

Or is it that this cynical bunch just decided to try to gain leverage by putting it on their shopping list with other irrelevances like 'illegally obtained artefacts', the status of Gibraltar and dynamic alignment?

They haven’t yet realised that we have left their protectionist club. Either they want an agreement with us or they don’t. Either way is fine with me but if they are serious, they need to get real.

Proximity works both ways and maybe the UK should remind our friendly neighbours who their biggest customer is.

I fear your problem is that you think the EU have invented the phrase geographical proximity and that's your real problem. Just call it something else if it helps. If most international trade takes place between near neighbours under FTAs then it's a real thing whatever you call it. Please understand that this doesn't mean you can't trade with far flung countries.

Of course proximity works both ways - welcome on board. 

I'm not going to spend 5 minutes worrying about Gibraltar or arguing about whether artefacts should be housed in a UK or overseas museum. 

John_Doe

Sailtheworld said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Sailtheworld said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Sailtheworld said:

We'll show 'em in Brussels as we head into a brave new World where we agree trade deals with the long queue of countries waiting in eager anticipation.

The government has estimated a post-Brexit trade deal with the United States would boost the UK economy by 0.16% over the next 15 years.

What a joke. You lot were duped.

The Guardian are trying to claim that a "comprehensive" trade deal will be worth just 0.16% growth. Therefore there's effectively no benefit to having a US trade deal (apparently).

However, not having one with the EU will apparently be catastrophic. So why is it pretty much worthless to have a comprehensive trade deal with the worlds largest economy, but critical and lucrative to have one with the worlds third largest bloc?

You won't like the answer, It's geographical proximity. I should make this my signature but most international trade takes place between near neighbours under FTAs.

If geographical proximity is so important, how is it that European countries and the USA have traded successfully with countries is East Asia for 70 years? How is it that the tern never cropped up in negotiations between the EU and the UK until a couple of weeks ago?  Did the EU suddenly realise that a potentially serious competitor was just offshore?

Or is it that this cynical bunch just decided to try to gain leverage by putting it on their shopping list with other irrelevances like 'illegally obtained artefacts', the status of Gibraltar and dynamic alignment?

They haven’t yet realised that we have left their protectionist club. Either they want an agreement with us or they don’t. Either way is fine with me but if they are serious, they need to get real.

Proximity works both ways and maybe the UK should remind our friendly neighbours who their biggest customer is.

I fear your problem is that you think the EU have invented the phrase geographical proximity and that's your real problem. Just call it something else if it helps. If most international trade takes place between near neighbours under FTAs then it's a real thing whatever you call it. Please understand that this doesn't mean you can't trade with far flung countries.

Of course proximity works both ways - welcome on board. 

I'm not going to spend 5 minutes worrying about Gibraltar or arguing about whether artefacts should be housed in a UK or overseas museum. 

I notice that you have repeatedly failed to adequately address the question posed:
"why is it pretty much worthless to have a comprehensive trade deal with the worlds largest economy, but critical and lucrative to have one with the worlds third largest bloc?"
Your response suggests that no trade elsewhere than with neighbours is necessary as that is the most important yet this is obviously not the case, hence the UK's increasing trade beyond the EU and the EU's main trading partners (the USA & China) are not neighbours and have no deal with the EU.
Proximity means zilch with those facts.
So in light of your error would you like to try again?

Dick_Rambo

Surprise! Plans for a Brexit version of the EU's Galileo have been delayed.

Or when Brexit delusions and reality meet. 
 (can't post link as I've only been a member of this forum for 10 years, but it's an article in The Register.)

Hopes of an on-time delivery of a report into how the UK's Galileo replacement might work have been dealt a blow as, yup, it's running late. According to the Financial Times, the wholly unsurprising news is that squabbles over cost and scope have led to a delay of at least six months in the publication of the plan.
Spending £5bn on something that is perhaps more about national prestige than national security may not have seemed such a good idea once the Brexit bunting was taken down and the post-31 January 2020 hangover started.

Herzlos

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Sailtheworld said:

We'll show 'em in Brussels as we head into a brave new World where we agree trade deals with the long queue of countries waiting in eager anticipation.

The government has estimated a post-Brexit trade deal with the United States would boost the UK economy by 0.16% over the next 15 years.

What a joke. You lot were duped.

The Guardian are trying to claim that a "comprehensive" trade deal will be worth just 0.16% growth. Therefore there's effectively no benefit to having a US trade deal (apparently).

However, not having one with the EU will apparently be catastrophic. So why is it pretty much worthless to have a comprehensive trade deal with the worlds largest economy, but critical and lucrative to have one with the worlds third largest bloc?

0.16% growth is good, but it's not worth causing an 8% decline for (best case scenario for brexit from about 2016).

Moe_The_Bartender

Herzlos said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Sailtheworld said:

We'll show 'em in Brussels as we head into a brave new World where we agree trade deals with the long queue of countries waiting in eager anticipation.

The government has estimated a post-Brexit trade deal with the United States would boost the UK economy by 0.16% over the next 15 years.

What a joke. You lot were duped.

The Guardian are trying to claim that a "comprehensive" trade deal will be worth just 0.16% growth. Therefore there's effectively no benefit to having a US trade deal (apparently).

However, not having one with the EU will apparently be catastrophic. So why is it pretty much worthless to have a comprehensive trade deal with the worlds largest economy, but critical and lucrative to have one with the worlds third largest bloc?

0.16% growth is good, but it's not worth causing an 8% decline for (best case scenario for brexit from about 2016).

What are you talking about now? What is this 8%? 

John_Doe

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Herzlos said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Sailtheworld said:

We'll show 'em in Brussels as we head into a brave new World where we agree trade deals with the long queue of countries waiting in eager anticipation.

The government has estimated a post-Brexit trade deal with the United States would boost the UK economy by 0.16% over the next 15 years.

What a joke. You lot were duped.

The Guardian are trying to claim that a "comprehensive" trade deal will be worth just 0.16% growth. Therefore there's effectively no benefit to having a US trade deal (apparently).

However, not having one with the EU will apparently be catastrophic. So why is it pretty much worthless to have a comprehensive trade deal with the worlds largest economy, but critical and lucrative to have one with the worlds third largest bloc?

0.16% growth is good, but it's not worth causing an 8% decline for (best case scenario for brexit from about 2016).

What are you talking about now? What is this 8%? 

And does Herzlos not understand that it would be +0.16% extra, i.e. in addition to current forecasts which (H must surely realise) already suggest that the UK will do better than the EU?   

Sailtheworld

John_Doe said:

Sailtheworld said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Sailtheworld said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Sailtheworld said:

We'll show 'em in Brussels as we head into a brave new World where we agree trade deals with the long queue of countries waiting in eager anticipation.

The government has estimated a post-Brexit trade deal with the United States would boost the UK economy by 0.16% over the next 15 years.

What a joke. You lot were duped.

The Guardian are trying to claim that a "comprehensive" trade deal will be worth just 0.16% growth. Therefore there's effectively no benefit to having a US trade deal (apparently).

However, not having one with the EU will apparently be catastrophic. So why is it pretty much worthless to have a comprehensive trade deal with the worlds largest economy, but critical and lucrative to have one with the worlds third largest bloc?

You won't like the answer, It's geographical proximity. I should make this my signature but most international trade takes place between near neighbours under FTAs.

If geographical proximity is so important, how is it that European countries and the USA have traded successfully with countries is East Asia for 70 years? How is it that the tern never cropped up in negotiations between the EU and the UK until a couple of weeks ago?  Did the EU suddenly realise that a potentially serious competitor was just offshore?

Or is it that this cynical bunch just decided to try to gain leverage by putting it on their shopping list with other irrelevances like 'illegally obtained artefacts', the status of Gibraltar and dynamic alignment?

They haven’t yet realised that we have left their protectionist club. Either they want an agreement with us or they don’t. Either way is fine with me but if they are serious, they need to get real.

Proximity works both ways and maybe the UK should remind our friendly neighbours who their biggest customer is.

I fear your problem is that you think the EU have invented the phrase geographical proximity and that's your real problem. Just call it something else if it helps. If most international trade takes place between near neighbours under FTAs then it's a real thing whatever you call it. Please understand that this doesn't mean you can't trade with far flung countries.

Of course proximity works both ways - welcome on board. 

I'm not going to spend 5 minutes worrying about Gibraltar or arguing about whether artefacts should be housed in a UK or overseas museum. 

I notice that you have repeatedly failed to adequately address the question posed:
"why is it pretty much worthless to have a comprehensive trade deal with the worlds largest economy, but critical and lucrative to have one with the worlds third largest bloc?"
Your response suggests that no trade elsewhere than with neighbours is necessary as that is the most important yet this is obviously not the case, hence the UK's increasing trade beyond the EU and the EU's main trading partners (the USA & China) are not neighbours and have no deal with the EU.
Proximity means zilch with those facts.
So in light of your error would you like to try again?

The government, not me, are saying it's pretty much worthless to have a comprehensive trade deal with the World's largest economy (a 0.16% 'boost' to the economy over 15 years). Likewise, the government's own assessment of the negative consequences of not getting a deal seem to demonstrate it's pretty critical. John, perhaps you should ask them?

Only someone deliberately trying to miss the point would suggest I'm saying only trade with neighbours is necessary so your rebuttal is unnecessary. Thanks for showing that exceptions don't prove rules though.

Sailtheworld

John_Doe said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Herzlos said:

Moe_The_Bartender said:

Sailtheworld said:

We'll show 'em in Brussels as we head into a brave new World where we agree trade deals with the long queue of countries waiting in eager anticipation.

The government has estimated a post-Brexit trade deal with the United States would boost the UK economy by 0.16% over the next 15 years.

What a joke. You lot were duped.

The Guardian are trying to claim that a "comprehensive" trade deal will be worth just 0.16% growth. Therefore there's effectively no benefit to having a US trade deal (apparently).

However, not having one with the EU will apparently be catastrophic. So why is it pretty much worthless to have a comprehensive trade deal with the worlds largest economy, but critical and lucrative to have one with the worlds third largest bloc?

0.16% growth is good, but it's not worth causing an 8% decline for (best case scenario for brexit from about 2016).

What are you talking about now? What is this 8%? 

And does Herzlos not understand that it would be +0.16% extra, i.e. in addition to current forecasts which (H must surely realise) already suggest that the UK will do better than the EU?   

0.16% over 15 years makes rounding errors look significant.