FTSE rising whilst prospect of FTA seems to be fading

BananaRepublic

Bobziz said:

Sailtheworld said:

BananaRepublic said:

Sailtheworld said:

John464 said:

All I know so far is this will be a deal that puts up barriers to trade we haven't got now

A vote to leave the EU was a vote to make trade with the EU more difficult. This was known when we stepped into the polling booths on referendum day.

No it wasn’t. There may have been many reasons to favour Brexit, but arguably the key one was to escape from ever increasing political and economic union with the EU. An increase in trade friction was an inevitable side effect. Frictionless trade at any price is not desirable. 

You're completely agreeing with me. A vote to leave the EU was a vote to make trade with the EU more difficult. Of course those voting to leave thought the potential benefits would be worth it. 

What are the benefits and when do they begin ? Genuine question, as I've struggled to find the answers. What I've heard so far is the control and sovereignty things, but I'm keen to understand how they will translate into a better standard of living for the majority. Any objective evidenced based thoughts would be much appreciated.

It is entirely possible that Brexit will lead to a slightly lower standard of living in terms of income.

There are many reasons people may have voted for Brexit. Take immigration. The incomers benefitted the middle classes by reducing the cost of trades such as plumbers, and making it easier to find cheap labour in factories. This disadvantaged the poorer indigenous population. The huge net immigration significantly increased demand on housing, driving property prices up, hitting the poorest the most. It’s not so surprising that many Labour heartlands supported Boris. 

Also we might benefit from trade deals outside the EU. For example with America which might become a source of some foodstuffs at lower prices benefitting the lower paid. There has been a lot talked about supposed low US farming standards, but unless I’m mistaken we already import meat from countries with lower welfare standards. 

For me life is about more than simple economics, I voted for Brexit in full knowledge that it might have a negative economic impact. 

coastline

Bit of a damp squib after all that. FTSE has followed the DOW as usual.
 FTSE 100 Index, UK:UKX Advanced Chart - (FTSE UK) UK:UKX, FTSE 100 Index Stock Price - BigCharts.com (marketwatch.com)
FTSE 100 Index, UK:UKX Advanced Chart - (FTSE UK) UK:UKX, FTSE 100 Index Stock Price - BigCharts.com (marketwatch.com)
Despite the commentators who said it wasn't possible to do a deal in a short time now it's done. We'll just have to see what happens and probably nobody will notice much difference to their lives. These projections of reduced GDP and living standards are always a guess. How they can estimate the economy out to 2030 and beyond is debatable. The UK has an opening to forge new ground so let's be optimistic .
Regarding buying British it isn't realistic. You can hardly go down the high street and do that. It's not the general publics fault either as we are more or less forced to buy what's on offer. Look at all the plastic in use and yet the theme is about saving the planet. It's down to those in charge to make the changes . Yes the people can add a bit of pressure but we are directed.
Anyway the markets have recovered well despite a very bad year. Let's hope everyone has a happy and healthy 2021. 

Alistair31

BananaRepublic said:

Alistair31 said:

BananaRepublic said:

Thrugelmir said:

BananaRepublic said:

Sailtheworld said:

John464 said:

All I know so far is this will be a deal that puts up barriers to trade we haven't got now

A vote to leave the EU was a vote to make trade with the EU more difficult. This was known when we stepped into the polling booths on referendum day.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this deal is the apparent lack of a payment for EU access. 

Works both ways.  Tariffs as in import duty would be a payment. The broader WTO rules govern what is permissable or not. Access charges would be illegal. 

I don’t understand your post. Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein all pay for access to the EU markets, Norway pays a fortune albeit roughly 100 Euros per person per year which is on a par with the UK contribution. 

It is conceivable they allowed for the fact that we are a net importer of EU products excluding services. 

In 2018 the ONS has U.K. gross contribution at £20bn, which is £301 per person per year. Where does your 100 Euros figure come from? 

Even after abatement the figure is way above 100 euros 

You need to look at the net contribution after deducting the so called UK rebate and the money that is spent within the UK. The net amount in 2020 is a bit higher than I stated. I used some older figures as I needed EU and none EU member contributions. Note that your figures are gross amounts and in GBP.

But the data is good enough to compare relative contributions, and show that the per capita contribution by Norway is roughly the same as that of the UK. In other words, that we don’t apparently contribute is surprising and opens up a big hole in the EU budget. 

I have and yet still cannot see anywhere where we get close to the GBP equivalent of 100 euros per head, on a like for like basis, net vs net, that is. 

Thrugelmir

Alistair31 said:

BananaRepublic said:

Alistair31 said:

BananaRepublic said:

Thrugelmir said:

BananaRepublic said:

Sailtheworld said:

John464 said:

All I know so far is this will be a deal that puts up barriers to trade we haven't got now

A vote to leave the EU was a vote to make trade with the EU more difficult. This was known when we stepped into the polling booths on referendum day.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this deal is the apparent lack of a payment for EU access. 

Works both ways.  Tariffs as in import duty would be a payment. The broader WTO rules govern what is permissable or not. Access charges would be illegal. 

I don’t understand your post. Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein all pay for access to the EU markets, Norway pays a fortune albeit roughly 100 Euros per person per year which is on a par with the UK contribution. 

It is conceivable they allowed for the fact that we are a net importer of EU products excluding services. 

In 2018 the ONS has U.K. gross contribution at £20bn, which is £301 per person per year. Where does your 100 Euros figure come from? 

Even after abatement the figure is way above 100 euros 

You need to look at the net contribution after deducting the so called UK rebate and the money that is spent within the UK. The net amount in 2020 is a bit higher than I stated. I used some older figures as I needed EU and none EU member contributions. Note that your figures are gross amounts and in GBP.

But the data is good enough to compare relative contributions, and show that the per capita contribution by Norway is roughly the same as that of the UK. In other words, that we don’t apparently contribute is surprising and opens up a big hole in the EU budget. 

I have and yet still cannot see anywhere where we get close to the GBP equivalent of 100 euros per head, on a like for like basis, net vs net, that is. 

Only 4 countries within the EU are net contributors to the budget currrently. The UK was one. 

Bobziz

BananaRepublic said:

Bobziz said:

Sailtheworld said:

BananaRepublic said:

Sailtheworld said:

John464 said:

All I know so far is this will be a deal that puts up barriers to trade we haven't got now

A vote to leave the EU was a vote to make trade with the EU more difficult. This was known when we stepped into the polling booths on referendum day.

No it wasn’t. There may have been many reasons to favour Brexit, but arguably the key one was to escape from ever increasing political and economic union with the EU. An increase in trade friction was an inevitable side effect. Frictionless trade at any price is not desirable. 

You're completely agreeing with me. A vote to leave the EU was a vote to make trade with the EU more difficult. Of course those voting to leave thought the potential benefits would be worth it. 

What are the benefits and when do they begin ? Genuine question, as I've struggled to find the answers. What I've heard so far is the control and sovereignty things, but I'm keen to understand how they will translate into a better standard of living for the majority. Any objective evidenced based thoughts would be much appreciated.

It is entirely possible that Brexit will lead to a slightly lower standard of living in terms of income.

There are many reasons people may have voted for Brexit. Take immigration. The incomers benefitted the middle classes by reducing the cost of trades such as plumbers, and making it easier to find cheap labour in factories. This disadvantaged the poorer indigenous population. The huge net immigration significantly increased demand on housing, driving property prices up, hitting the poorest the most. It’s not so surprising that many Labour heartlands supported Boris. 

Also we might benefit from trade deals outside the EU. For example with America which might become a source of some foodstuffs at lower prices benefitting the lower paid. There has been a lot talked about supposed low US farming standards, but unless I’m mistaken we already import meat from countries with lower welfare standards. 

For me life is about more than simple economics, I voted for Brexit in full knowledge that it might have a negative economic impact. 

Thanks for your reply. Interesting. Now that the initial bits of negotiation are done, I'm looking to move on from the why and focus on the positive what's. So as an example, in your view if net immigration falls, then we might pay more for our trades people but less for our houses, and we might get even more cheap lower welfare standard foodstuffs. However, overall we might expect to be a little poorer financially. May be it's just me, but I'm not finding that to be a very positive prospect. What are the non economic benefits that you're hoping to see, and will they make us happier or perhaps healthier ?

Alistair31

Thrugelmir said:

Alistair31 said:

BananaRepublic said:

Alistair31 said:

BananaRepublic said:

Thrugelmir said:

BananaRepublic said:

Sailtheworld said:

John464 said:

All I know so far is this will be a deal that puts up barriers to trade we haven't got now

A vote to leave the EU was a vote to make trade with the EU more difficult. This was known when we stepped into the polling booths on referendum day.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this deal is the apparent lack of a payment for EU access. 

Works both ways.  Tariffs as in import duty would be a payment. The broader WTO rules govern what is permissable or not. Access charges would be illegal. 

I don’t understand your post. Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein all pay for access to the EU markets, Norway pays a fortune albeit roughly 100 Euros per person per year which is on a par with the UK contribution. 

It is conceivable they allowed for the fact that we are a net importer of EU products excluding services. 

In 2018 the ONS has U.K. gross contribution at £20bn, which is £301 per person per year. Where does your 100 Euros figure come from? 

Even after abatement the figure is way above 100 euros 

You need to look at the net contribution after deducting the so called UK rebate and the money that is spent within the UK. The net amount in 2020 is a bit higher than I stated. I used some older figures as I needed EU and none EU member contributions. Note that your figures are gross amounts and in GBP.

But the data is good enough to compare relative contributions, and show that the per capita contribution by Norway is roughly the same as that of the UK. In other words, that we don’t apparently contribute is surprising and opens up a big hole in the EU budget. 

I have and yet still cannot see anywhere where we get close to the GBP equivalent of 100 euros per head, on a like for like basis, net vs net, that is. 

Only 4 countries within the EU are net contributors to the budget currrently. The UK was one. 

I thought it was 10. Regardless, I’m glad we are out. 

Still, would like to see the source for the 100 euro per head claim. 

Thrugelmir

Alistair31 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Alistair31 said:

BananaRepublic said:

Alistair31 said:

BananaRepublic said:

Thrugelmir said:

BananaRepublic said:

Sailtheworld said:

John464 said:

All I know so far is this will be a deal that puts up barriers to trade we haven't got now

A vote to leave the EU was a vote to make trade with the EU more difficult. This was known when we stepped into the polling booths on referendum day.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this deal is the apparent lack of a payment for EU access. 

Works both ways.  Tariffs as in import duty would be a payment. The broader WTO rules govern what is permissable or not. Access charges would be illegal. 

I don’t understand your post. Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein all pay for access to the EU markets, Norway pays a fortune albeit roughly 100 Euros per person per year which is on a par with the UK contribution. 

It is conceivable they allowed for the fact that we are a net importer of EU products excluding services. 

In 2018 the ONS has U.K. gross contribution at £20bn, which is £301 per person per year. Where does your 100 Euros figure come from? 

Even after abatement the figure is way above 100 euros 

You need to look at the net contribution after deducting the so called UK rebate and the money that is spent within the UK. The net amount in 2020 is a bit higher than I stated. I used some older figures as I needed EU and none EU member contributions. Note that your figures are gross amounts and in GBP.

But the data is good enough to compare relative contributions, and show that the per capita contribution by Norway is roughly the same as that of the UK. In other words, that we don’t apparently contribute is surprising and opens up a big hole in the EU budget. 

I have and yet still cannot see anywhere where we get close to the GBP equivalent of 100 euros per head, on a like for like basis, net vs net, that is. 

Only 4 countries within the EU are net contributors to the budget currrently. The UK was one. 

I thought it was 10. Regardless, I’m glad we are out. 

Still, would like to see the source for the 100 euro per head claim. 

CAP (redistribution) results in countries such as France being a net beneficiary. 

Another_Saver

BananaRepublic said:

Bobziz said:

Sailtheworld said:

BananaRepublic said:

Sailtheworld said:

John464 said:

All I know so far is this will be a deal that puts up barriers to trade we haven't got now

A vote to leave the EU was a vote to make trade with the EU more difficult. This was known when we stepped into the polling booths on referendum day.

No it wasn’t. There may have been many reasons to favour Brexit, but arguably the key one was to escape from ever increasing political and economic union with the EU. An increase in trade friction was an inevitable side effect. Frictionless trade at any price is not desirable. 

You're completely agreeing with me. A vote to leave the EU was a vote to make trade with the EU more difficult. Of course those voting to leave thought the potential benefits would be worth it. 

What are the benefits and when do they begin ? Genuine question, as I've struggled to find the answers. What I've heard so far is the control and sovereignty things, but I'm keen to understand how they will translate into a better standard of living for the majority. Any objective evidenced based thoughts would be much appreciated.

It is entirely possible that Brexit will lead to a slightly lower standard of living in terms of income.

There are many reasons people may have voted for Brexit. Take immigration. The incomers benefitted the middle classes by reducing the cost of trades such as plumbers, and making it easier to find cheap labour in factories. This disadvantaged the poorer indigenous population. The huge net immigration significantly increased demand on housing, driving property prices up, hitting the poorest the most. It’s not so surprising that many Labour heartlands supported Boris.
There is no evidence for any of that, at all. Everything you have said apart from the last bit about the Red Wall has been debunked. Net immigration is a non-issue, a convenient distraction and scapegoat lacking any evidence of material negative impacts. It has been lower in the UK than the developed world average.

Also we might benefit from trade deals outside the EU. For example with America which might become a source of some foodstuffs at lower prices benefitting the lower paid. There has been a lot talked about supposed low US farming standards, but unless I’m mistaken we already import meat from countries with lower welfare standards. 

For me life is about more than simple economics, I voted for Brexit in full knowledge that it might have a negative economic impact.

...

NottinghamKnight

Bobziz said:

BananaRepublic said:

Bobziz said:

Sailtheworld said:

BananaRepublic said:

Sailtheworld said:

John464 said:

All I know so far is this will be a deal that puts up barriers to trade we haven't got now

A vote to leave the EU was a vote to make trade with the EU more difficult. This was known when we stepped into the polling booths on referendum day.

No it wasn’t. There may have been many reasons to favour Brexit, but arguably the key one was to escape from ever increasing political and economic union with the EU. An increase in trade friction was an inevitable side effect. Frictionless trade at any price is not desirable. 

You're completely agreeing with me. A vote to leave the EU was a vote to make trade with the EU more difficult. Of course those voting to leave thought the potential benefits would be worth it. 

What are the benefits and when do they begin ? Genuine question, as I've struggled to find the answers. What I've heard so far is the control and sovereignty things, but I'm keen to understand how they will translate into a better standard of living for the majority. Any objective evidenced based thoughts would be much appreciated.

It is entirely possible that Brexit will lead to a slightly lower standard of living in terms of income.

There are many reasons people may have voted for Brexit. Take immigration. The incomers benefitted the middle classes by reducing the cost of trades such as plumbers, and making it easier to find cheap labour in factories. This disadvantaged the poorer indigenous population. The huge net immigration significantly increased demand on housing, driving property prices up, hitting the poorest the most. It’s not so surprising that many Labour heartlands supported Boris. 

Also we might benefit from trade deals outside the EU. For example with America which might become a source of some foodstuffs at lower prices benefitting the lower paid. There has been a lot talked about supposed low US farming standards, but unless I’m mistaken we already import meat from countries with lower welfare standards. 

For me life is about more than simple economics, I voted for Brexit in full knowledge that it might have a negative economic impact. 

Thanks for your reply. Interesting. Now that the initial bits of negotiation are done, I'm looking to move on from the why and focus on the positive what's. So as an example, in your view if net immigration falls, then we might pay more for our trades people but less for our houses, and we might get even more cheap lower welfare standard foodstuffs. However, overall we might expect to be a little poorer financially. May be it's just me, but I'm not finding that to be a very positive prospect. What are the non economic benefits that you're hoping to see, and will they make us happier or perhaps healthier ?

it's of course possible to earn less and be better off, a reduction in housing costs for the majority being the obvious example; in fact if you remove housing then the inter generational unfairness that many quote is largely removed. The problem is that people, especially in the uk, feel such a warm glow from rising house prices which is a terrible use of capital, the issue of large amounts of savings rather than investments is being addressed by zero interest rates but no doubt much of that money will continue to flow into property rather than equities. 
It's by no mean all rosy, the farming lobby in the US is strong and so resisting imports of hormone treated beef or chlorinated chicken will be seized on by any US administration as a trade barrier rather than a welfare and health measure. The difficulty is that food is now cheaper than it ever has been but people won't spend on higher welfare and quality, recent Farming Today podcast related a chicken farmer who was criticised for minimal welfare in his sheds and said he'd gone to higher welfare twice before but the public wouldn't pay the increased cost.
Benefits will include increased flexibility in trading with other countries, there's no doubt that fishing has been conceded by Boris but the lobby in northern european EU states is stronger than that in the UK and minor concessions on fishing have been traded against arguably more valuable agreement in trade elsewhere. 

Cus

Another_Saver said:

BananaRepublic said:

Bobziz said:

Sailtheworld said:

BananaRepublic said:

Sailtheworld said:

John464 said:

All I know so far is this will be a deal that puts up barriers to trade we haven't got now

A vote to leave the EU was a vote to make trade with the EU more difficult. This was known when we stepped into the polling booths on referendum day.

No it wasn’t. There may have been many reasons to favour Brexit, but arguably the key one was to escape from ever increasing political and economic union with the EU. An increase in trade friction was an inevitable side effect. Frictionless trade at any price is not desirable. 

You're completely agreeing with me. A vote to leave the EU was a vote to make trade with the EU more difficult. Of course those voting to leave thought the potential benefits would be worth it. 

What are the benefits and when do they begin ? Genuine question, as I've struggled to find the answers. What I've heard so far is the control and sovereignty things, but I'm keen to understand how they will translate into a better standard of living for the majority. Any objective evidenced based thoughts would be much appreciated.

It is entirely possible that Brexit will lead to a slightly lower standard of living in terms of income.

There are many reasons people may have voted for Brexit. Take immigration. The incomers benefitted the middle classes by reducing the cost of trades such as plumbers, and making it easier to find cheap labour in factories. This disadvantaged the poorer indigenous population. The huge net immigration significantly increased demand on housing, driving property prices up, hitting the poorest the most. It’s not so surprising that many Labour heartlands supported Boris.
There is no evidence for any of that, at all. Everything you have said apart from the last bit about the Red Wall has been debunked. Net immigration is a non-issue, a convenient distraction and scapegoat lacking any evidence of material negative impacts. It has been lower in the UK than the developed world average.

Also we might benefit from trade deals outside the EU. For example with America which might become a source of some foodstuffs at lower prices benefitting the lower paid. There has been a lot talked about supposed low US farming standards, but unless I’m mistaken we already import meat from countries with lower welfare standards. 

For me life is about more than simple economics, I voted for Brexit in full knowledge that it might have a negative economic impact.

...

Agree, and imo this false logic was a reason a large number of people voted the way they did.