FTSE rising whilst prospect of FTA seems to be fading

MaxiRobriguez

Cus said:

I don't understand why so much time and effort was spent negotiating the fishing industry (0.1% of GDP, 24k jobs) rather than financial services industry (6.5% of GDP, 1.1mn jobs)
My fear is that it was because of a nationalistic sentiment.

Optics.

Repatriation of fishing was one of a few physical representation of "take back control."

Asserting how important that was to us in the final stages probably drew final concessions on tariff-free access to the EU market. Personally I didn't think Boris and Frost ever gave a stuff about fishing in the slightest, and I had a conversation with friends in early December where I suggested we will take whatever the final EU offer is on fish regardless of what the offer was.

Thrugelmir

NottinghamKnight said:

BananaRepublic said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Mickey666 said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Mickey666 said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Mickey666 said:

MK62 said:

Mickey666 said:

Thrugelmir said:

csgohan4 said:

Thrugelmir said:

csgohan4 said:

LHW99 said:

UK surely makes more exports to the EU than the rest of the world?

Not according to gov.uk

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-exports-to-non-eu-countries-continue-to-outstrip-eu

Surprising given the vast area covered by The EU, however making deals with individual countries, rather than en bloc like the EU, will be very time consuming/expensive and will unlikely have favourable terms compared to the EU as they know they have the UK over a barrel. 

Only 11% of UK trade is with countries with which there's an existing EU trade agreement. The creation of the RCEP has created a headache for the EU. Now the bigggest trade area in the world. 

 While the brexiteers are sniggering in their rich holiday houses abroad, not caring how brexit affects the average Joe. 

You are carrrying one big chip on your shoulder. Time to move on. Remainers living abroad are the ones who object. As it is they they now need to meet conditions of residency. The tales of woe show how much self interest determines peoples views. Much in the same way Covid has. Time to kick American Exceptionalism a byproduct of their form of capitalism into touch. 

If anything, I'd say the Brexit referendum was a masterclass in proving why asking the uninformed masses to make important decisions is the worst example of democracy in action.  It's all madness.

You do realise that it's the same "uninformed masses" who elect our MPs and governments don't you?........should they not be allowed to do that either?

Of course they should, that's the whole point of a parliamentary democracy.  We vote for a representative to make decisions on our behalf, on the basis that those representatives will be better informed than us by virtue of their 24/7/365 time spent on the job plus their daily access to expert advisers, parliamentary debates, select committees, the civil service etc.

We certainly don't or at least that is not what occurs. The majority of the people vote for a party, not an individual with a very few exceptions; indeed those votes are based on a feeling that the broad policies of that party are best for an individual and/ or the country, how many people read any of a party's manifesto. MPs are now supposed to be representative rather than any sort of cream of the population, and unfortunately will follow the party line as they are whipped into voting on the vast majority of issues. when MPs decide to make decisions against their party, and potentially against the majority of their constituents then things get very problematic. 

You're probably right that the majority of people vote for a party and probably don't even know the name of their MP (more uninformed-ness and why there are things such as 'safe seats'), but I didn't mention MPs, only 'representatives'. 

A political party can be our 'representative' and the principle of parliamentary democracy remains - the 'uninformed masses' defer all decision-making to parliament, with the party affiliation of their local MP being a fairly broad-brush expression of their own personal political leanings.

It seems to be a fairly good system, or the least bad on depending on your point of view.  But referendums break the system because they bypass the parliamentary process that generally does a good job of weeding out detrimental decisions, through its process of debate, expert advice, reviews and time for reflection.

In the case of the Brexit referendum, with all its complexity and uncertainty that even the professional politicians and expert consultants couldn't predict or agree about, perhaps a better approach would have been a second referendum when the detailed implications were much better known?

Thus, the first referendum could have been the simplistic in/out question, followed by the inevitable (and important) debate and negotiation of the exit deal, followed by a second referendum asking the same basic in/out question but this time in the fuller knowledge of what the detailed implications would be.

What we have actually done is ask the simplistic in/out question with little real knowledge of the eventual implications but when those implications are better known (ie 'the deal') we have deferred back to parliament to decide, rather than allow the people to decide.

Seems rather inconsistent really.

Maybe, democracy can be taken too far after all, would be much quicker to get the educated and wealthy to determine these matters. people like Boris, Rees-Mogg  etc

Did you forget the smiley?
I think we'd all agreed we've rightly moved on from the days where only landowners were allowed a vote  - and that didn't include women of course.
As for the like of Boris, Rees-Mogg etc, don't forget they are only in parliament because their constituents voted for them, so that's democracy in action isn't it?  After all, it would be an unrepresentative parliament that DIDN'T include representation of such people.

Maybe but the ultimate outcome is pretty similar and the electorate had a clear choice between in and out (as for the SNP in Scotland) between Boris and Corbyn and chose the former. Most people are voting for the least worse option let's not forget.

Boris is not unlike Thatcher, as both benefitted from unelectable opponants and huge luck. The Falklands War covered over the disastrous economic mess, and the Brexit success (in the eyes of many) and the vaccine purchases may well excuse the screw up dealing with covid. Slow to respond at the start. Care homes decimated. A ‘world beating’ track and trace system. 

I wonder if we will lose NI and Scotland? The siren charms of the EU handing out big bags of sweeties may be too much to resist. I bet they don’t want Wales ... 🙂

Strangely Wales would follow the Celtic tiger model better than Ireland, couple of houss drive from London rather than a flight, would work well with suitable tax rates.

Facebook is closing it's Irish tax loophole operation and repatatriating everything back to the US. Times are changing. 

The EU (at least the Eurozone)  will continue it's progression towards a fiscal Union.

There's pressure from a number of directions that's not going to go away. 

NottinghamKnight

Thrugelmir said:

NottinghamKnight said:

BananaRepublic said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Mickey666 said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Mickey666 said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Mickey666 said:

MK62 said:

Mickey666 said:

Thrugelmir said:

csgohan4 said:

Thrugelmir said:

csgohan4 said:

LHW99 said:

UK surely makes more exports to the EU than the rest of the world?

Not according to gov.uk

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-exports-to-non-eu-countries-continue-to-outstrip-eu

Surprising given the vast area covered by The EU, however making deals with individual countries, rather than en bloc like the EU, will be very time consuming/expensive and will unlikely have favourable terms compared to the EU as they know they have the UK over a barrel. 

Only 11% of UK trade is with countries with which there's an existing EU trade agreement. The creation of the RCEP has created a headache for the EU. Now the bigggest trade area in the world. 

 While the brexiteers are sniggering in their rich holiday houses abroad, not caring how brexit affects the average Joe. 

You are carrrying one big chip on your shoulder. Time to move on. Remainers living abroad are the ones who object. As it is they they now need to meet conditions of residency. The tales of woe show how much self interest determines peoples views. Much in the same way Covid has. Time to kick American Exceptionalism a byproduct of their form of capitalism into touch. 

If anything, I'd say the Brexit referendum was a masterclass in proving why asking the uninformed masses to make important decisions is the worst example of democracy in action.  It's all madness.

You do realise that it's the same "uninformed masses" who elect our MPs and governments don't you?........should they not be allowed to do that either?

Of course they should, that's the whole point of a parliamentary democracy.  We vote for a representative to make decisions on our behalf, on the basis that those representatives will be better informed than us by virtue of their 24/7/365 time spent on the job plus their daily access to expert advisers, parliamentary debates, select committees, the civil service etc.

We certainly don't or at least that is not what occurs. The majority of the people vote for a party, not an individual with a very few exceptions; indeed those votes are based on a feeling that the broad policies of that party are best for an individual and/ or the country, how many people read any of a party's manifesto. MPs are now supposed to be representative rather than any sort of cream of the population, and unfortunately will follow the party line as they are whipped into voting on the vast majority of issues. when MPs decide to make decisions against their party, and potentially against the majority of their constituents then things get very problematic. 

You're probably right that the majority of people vote for a party and probably don't even know the name of their MP (more uninformed-ness and why there are things such as 'safe seats'), but I didn't mention MPs, only 'representatives'. 

A political party can be our 'representative' and the principle of parliamentary democracy remains - the 'uninformed masses' defer all decision-making to parliament, with the party affiliation of their local MP being a fairly broad-brush expression of their own personal political leanings.

It seems to be a fairly good system, or the least bad on depending on your point of view.  But referendums break the system because they bypass the parliamentary process that generally does a good job of weeding out detrimental decisions, through its process of debate, expert advice, reviews and time for reflection.

In the case of the Brexit referendum, with all its complexity and uncertainty that even the professional politicians and expert consultants couldn't predict or agree about, perhaps a better approach would have been a second referendum when the detailed implications were much better known?

Thus, the first referendum could have been the simplistic in/out question, followed by the inevitable (and important) debate and negotiation of the exit deal, followed by a second referendum asking the same basic in/out question but this time in the fuller knowledge of what the detailed implications would be.

What we have actually done is ask the simplistic in/out question with little real knowledge of the eventual implications but when those implications are better known (ie 'the deal') we have deferred back to parliament to decide, rather than allow the people to decide.

Seems rather inconsistent really.

Maybe, democracy can be taken too far after all, would be much quicker to get the educated and wealthy to determine these matters. people like Boris, Rees-Mogg  etc

Did you forget the smiley?
I think we'd all agreed we've rightly moved on from the days where only landowners were allowed a vote  - and that didn't include women of course.
As for the like of Boris, Rees-Mogg etc, don't forget they are only in parliament because their constituents voted for them, so that's democracy in action isn't it?  After all, it would be an unrepresentative parliament that DIDN'T include representation of such people.

Maybe but the ultimate outcome is pretty similar and the electorate had a clear choice between in and out (as for the SNP in Scotland) between Boris and Corbyn and chose the former. Most people are voting for the least worse option let's not forget.

Boris is not unlike Thatcher, as both benefitted from unelectable opponants and huge luck. The Falklands War covered over the disastrous economic mess, and the Brexit success (in the eyes of many) and the vaccine purchases may well excuse the screw up dealing with covid. Slow to respond at the start. Care homes decimated. A ‘world beating’ track and trace system. 

I wonder if we will lose NI and Scotland? The siren charms of the EU handing out big bags of sweeties may be too much to resist. I bet they don’t want Wales ... 🙂

Strangely Wales would follow the Celtic tiger model better than Ireland, couple of houss drive from London rather than a flight, would work well with suitable tax rates.

Facebook is closing it's Irish tax loophole operation and repatatriating everything back to the US. Times are changing. 

The EU (at least the Eurozone)  will continue it's progression towards a fiscal Union.

There's pressure from a number of directions that's not going to go away. 

It has always surprised me how France and Germany have allowed this for so long to be honest. MY understanding is that fiscal union and centralisation is a key part of the european project, and the uk was always seen as never being committed to that, if the uk had stayed in but refused to go further it makes me wonder what would have happened, would the uk have been forced out or made a sort of associate member? 

NottinghamKnight

I thought fishing was seen as bargaining chip that was more sensitive to certain parts of the EU including parts of France, Spain, Belgium, Denmark etc
I would have thought the incentive would have been to punish the UK, especially as the EU could say it's your option to pull out and this is the consequence. There is widespread anti EU sentiment in a large number of countries, including France which you would have thought is not only central but typically a net beneficiary. 

BananaRepublic

NottinghamKnight said:
It has always surprised me how France and Germany have allowed this for so long to be honest. MY understanding is that fiscal union and centralisation is a key part of the european project, and the uk was always seen as never being committed to that, if the uk had stayed in but refused to go further it makes me wonder what would have happened, would the uk have been forced out or made a sort of associate member? 

The goal all along has been a full union, openly admitted in private from the outset and denied in public so as not to frighten the unwashed masses.

Our not joining the Euro was pivotal in allowing us to leave and as you say we were not committed to full union. Cameron apparently tried and failed to negotiate something along the lines of an associate membership. 

BananaRepublic

Mickey666 said:
You're right, there was no referendum about HOW we leave the EU, but perhaps there should have been because without it everyone was basically voting in the dark (ie uninformed) about what the consequences would really be.

But your amusing little sketch completely misses that point.  It would be pointless to ask the voters what sort of deal they wanted because, as you rightly allude, it was never in the UK's power to dictate anything.
The point of a 2nd referendum would have been AFTER the exit deal had been negotiated, ie instead of letting parliament decide yesterday it could have been the people that would decide if the exit terms were acceptable to them.
Thus, referendum 1 - should UK leave the EU?  yes/no  and referendum2 - should the UK leave the EU on the terms now negotiated? yes/no.
I suppose there could have been 3 options - 1. stay, 2. leave with the deal, 3. leave with no deal (ie WTO terms etc).
Actually, option 1 was not a real option by now because the UK had no unilateral power to stay, it would have require the approval of the EU.
But there we are, all water under the bridge now,  but of course for the next few years, anything that goes wrong with the economy will be blamed on brexit and anything that goes well with the economy will be blamed on brexit - so hours of more pointless politicking to look forward to

GB: I say chaps, give us a good deal, and then we’ll put it to the people? 
EU: Ouais, mon plaisir. We can give you a Norway style deal. Are we not generous, non?
GB: But that isn’t what we put in our manifesto old chap, we need sovereignty, no freedom of movement, the full Monty, what what. 
EU: C’est pas possible, hein. [Gives a Gallic shrug.] Allez vous en. We do not allow picking cherries. 
GB: Come on old chap, this just isn’t cricket. Play fair.  A Norway deal is almost the same as our membership, but without voting rights. 
EU: Ouais, on le sais. We really luurve your tasty feesh, and your beeg fat contribution cheques. Merci mes petits amis. 

The second referendum is held, the choices being to remain a member or have a Norway deal. No-one votes for leave.  The EU council celebrate with a slap up fish dinner: North sea cod, and chips accompanied by English whine. 

Mickey666: Since you don’t understand these little stories, the message is that the only way to get bargaining power when dealing with the EU is by brinkmanship. Boris used the nuclear option. 

Alexland

NottinghamKnight said:

MY understanding is that fiscal union and centralisation is a key part of the european project, and the uk was always seen as never being committed to that, if the uk had stayed in but refused to go further it makes me wonder what would have happened, would the uk have been forced out or made a sort of associate member? 

People seem to have forgotten Humphrey Appleby's explanation that the whole point of the UK being part of Europe was to make "a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing". How do we mess it up now?

Mickey666

BananaRepublic said:

Mickey666 said:
You're right, there was no referendum about HOW we leave the EU, but perhaps there should have been because without it everyone was basically voting in the dark (ie uninformed) about what the consequences would really be.

But your amusing little sketch completely misses that point.  It would be pointless to ask the voters what sort of deal they wanted because, as you rightly allude, it was never in the UK's power to dictate anything.
The point of a 2nd referendum would have been AFTER the exit deal had been negotiated, ie instead of letting parliament decide yesterday it could have been the people that would decide if the exit terms were acceptable to them.
Thus, referendum 1 - should UK leave the EU?  yes/no  and referendum2 - should the UK leave the EU on the terms now negotiated? yes/no.
I suppose there could have been 3 options - 1. stay, 2. leave with the deal, 3. leave with no deal (ie WTO terms etc).
Actually, option 1 was not a real option by now because the UK had no unilateral power to stay, it would have require the approval of the EU.
But there we are, all water under the bridge now,  but of course for the next few years, anything that goes wrong with the economy will be blamed on brexit and anything that goes well with the economy will be blamed on brexit - so hours of more pointless politicking to look forward to

GB: I say chaps, give us a good deal, and then we’ll put it to the people? 
EU: Ouais, mon plaisir. We can give you a Norway style deal. Are we not generous, non?
GB: But that isn’t what we put in our manifesto old chap, we need sovereignty, no freedom of movement, the full Monty, what what. 
EU: C’est pas possible, hein. [Gives a Gallic shrug.] Allez vous en. We do not allow picking cherries. 
GB: Come on old chap, this just isn’t cricket. Play fair.  A Norway deal is almost the same as our membership, but without voting rights. 
EU: Ouais, on le sais. We really luurve your tasty feesh, and your beeg fat contribution cheques. Merci mes petits amis. 

The second referendum is held, the choices being to remain a member or have a Norway deal. No-one votes for leave.  The EU council celebrate with a slap up fish dinner: North sea cod, and chips accompanied by English whine. 

Mickey666: Since you don’t understand these little stories, the message is that the only way to get bargaining power when dealing with the EU is by brinkmanship. Boris used the nuclear option. 

But 'remain' was never an option for a second referendum because we had already committed to leave by the end of the transition period.  So in practice a second referendum would have been 'deal or no deal' where no deal meant WTO terms and the 'nuclear option' of no deal/WTO would have focussd the minds of the EU . . . just as it clearly did.
I suppose 'remain' could have been a referendum option, but it was not something that the UK government had any control over, since it would require the EU to agree, unlike the 'deal or no deal' option . . . which is exactly what parliament voted on yesterday.  So, a second referendum would not have affected the negotiation process at all.

BananaRepublic

Mickey666 said:

But 'remain' was never an option for a second referendum because we had already committed to leave by the end of the transition period.  So in practice a second referendum would have been 'deal or no deal' where no deal meant WTO terms and the 'nuclear option' of no deal/WTO would have focussd the minds of the EU . . . just as it clearly did.
I suppose 'remain' could have been a referendum option, but it was not something that the UK government had any control over, since it would require the EU to agree, unlike the 'deal or no deal' option . . . which is exactly what parliament voted on yesterday.  So, a second referendum would not have affected the negotiation process at all.

Nope, the argument still stands. If you look at the polling, support for Brexit was falling no doubt due to the lack of progress and the real possibility of no deal. The British would not have voted for no deal. So the EU would have had us over a barrel. 

Regardless, it’s done. My anti Zombie gun is on order, locks have been checked and an extra bag or two of pasta stashed away. 

Thrugelmir

NottinghamKnight said:

Thrugelmir said:

NottinghamKnight said:

BananaRepublic said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Mickey666 said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Mickey666 said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Mickey666 said:

MK62 said:

Mickey666 said:

Thrugelmir said:

csgohan4 said:

Thrugelmir said:

csgohan4 said:

LHW99 said:

UK surely makes more exports to the EU than the rest of the world?

Not according to gov.uk

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-exports-to-non-eu-countries-continue-to-outstrip-eu

Surprising given the vast area covered by The EU, however making deals with individual countries, rather than en bloc like the EU, will be very time consuming/expensive and will unlikely have favourable terms compared to the EU as they know they have the UK over a barrel. 

Only 11% of UK trade is with countries with which there's an existing EU trade agreement. The creation of the RCEP has created a headache for the EU. Now the bigggest trade area in the world. 

 While the brexiteers are sniggering in their rich holiday houses abroad, not caring how brexit affects the average Joe. 

You are carrrying one big chip on your shoulder. Time to move on. Remainers living abroad are the ones who object. As it is they they now need to meet conditions of residency. The tales of woe show how much self interest determines peoples views. Much in the same way Covid has. Time to kick American Exceptionalism a byproduct of their form of capitalism into touch. 

If anything, I'd say the Brexit referendum was a masterclass in proving why asking the uninformed masses to make important decisions is the worst example of democracy in action.  It's all madness.

You do realise that it's the same "uninformed masses" who elect our MPs and governments don't you?........should they not be allowed to do that either?

Of course they should, that's the whole point of a parliamentary democracy.  We vote for a representative to make decisions on our behalf, on the basis that those representatives will be better informed than us by virtue of their 24/7/365 time spent on the job plus their daily access to expert advisers, parliamentary debates, select committees, the civil service etc.

We certainly don't or at least that is not what occurs. The majority of the people vote for a party, not an individual with a very few exceptions; indeed those votes are based on a feeling that the broad policies of that party are best for an individual and/ or the country, how many people read any of a party's manifesto. MPs are now supposed to be representative rather than any sort of cream of the population, and unfortunately will follow the party line as they are whipped into voting on the vast majority of issues. when MPs decide to make decisions against their party, and potentially against the majority of their constituents then things get very problematic. 

You're probably right that the majority of people vote for a party and probably don't even know the name of their MP (more uninformed-ness and why there are things such as 'safe seats'), but I didn't mention MPs, only 'representatives'. 

A political party can be our 'representative' and the principle of parliamentary democracy remains - the 'uninformed masses' defer all decision-making to parliament, with the party affiliation of their local MP being a fairly broad-brush expression of their own personal political leanings.

It seems to be a fairly good system, or the least bad on depending on your point of view.  But referendums break the system because they bypass the parliamentary process that generally does a good job of weeding out detrimental decisions, through its process of debate, expert advice, reviews and time for reflection.

In the case of the Brexit referendum, with all its complexity and uncertainty that even the professional politicians and expert consultants couldn't predict or agree about, perhaps a better approach would have been a second referendum when the detailed implications were much better known?

Thus, the first referendum could have been the simplistic in/out question, followed by the inevitable (and important) debate and negotiation of the exit deal, followed by a second referendum asking the same basic in/out question but this time in the fuller knowledge of what the detailed implications would be.

What we have actually done is ask the simplistic in/out question with little real knowledge of the eventual implications but when those implications are better known (ie 'the deal') we have deferred back to parliament to decide, rather than allow the people to decide.

Seems rather inconsistent really.

Maybe, democracy can be taken too far after all, would be much quicker to get the educated and wealthy to determine these matters. people like Boris, Rees-Mogg  etc

Did you forget the smiley?
I think we'd all agreed we've rightly moved on from the days where only landowners were allowed a vote  - and that didn't include women of course.
As for the like of Boris, Rees-Mogg etc, don't forget they are only in parliament because their constituents voted for them, so that's democracy in action isn't it?  After all, it would be an unrepresentative parliament that DIDN'T include representation of such people.

Maybe but the ultimate outcome is pretty similar and the electorate had a clear choice between in and out (as for the SNP in Scotland) between Boris and Corbyn and chose the former. Most people are voting for the least worse option let's not forget.

Boris is not unlike Thatcher, as both benefitted from unelectable opponants and huge luck. The Falklands War covered over the disastrous economic mess, and the Brexit success (in the eyes of many) and the vaccine purchases may well excuse the screw up dealing with covid. Slow to respond at the start. Care homes decimated. A ‘world beating’ track and trace system. 

I wonder if we will lose NI and Scotland? The siren charms of the EU handing out big bags of sweeties may be too much to resist. I bet they don’t want Wales ... 🙂

Strangely Wales would follow the Celtic tiger model better than Ireland, couple of houss drive from London rather than a flight, would work well with suitable tax rates.

Facebook is closing it's Irish tax loophole operation and repatatriating everything back to the US. Times are changing. 

The EU (at least the Eurozone)  will continue it's progression towards a fiscal Union.

There's pressure from a number of directions that's not going to go away. 

It has always surprised me how France and Germany have allowed this for so long to be honest. MY understanding is that fiscal union and centralisation is a key part of the european project, and the uk was always seen as never being committed to that, if the uk had stayed in but refused to go further it makes me wonder what would have happened, would the uk have been forced out or made a sort of associate member? 

France has effectively broken ranks and is now levying a digital tax which impacts the large US Tech companies. Expect the US to retaliate further once Biden has feet under the table.