Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Recommended Posts

Posted
10 hours ago, birch-chorley said:

Let’s be clear on diminishing, the EU has still grown in cash value terms, but as a % of global trade they are getting smaller. However, this can be said of all developed economies....

UK, EU, US, Australia, Canada, NewZealand etc are all ‘diminishing’ in terms of % share of global trade as the likes of China a India have developed at a huge rate 

With that in mind, why would we want to move away from a ‘diminishing’ EU to build trade deals with an equally ‘diminishing’ US? You can’t have it both ways 

If your after trade deals with economies that aren’t diminishing in terms of % share then you need to look at India and China but those deals are miles away if not impossible. That’s why Liz Truss is prioritising trade deals with countries that also have ‘diminishing’ % share of global trade 

Personally I’m with her, bollocks to % share, I’d rather go where...

1) the money is in absolute cash terms (EU, US, China, India, Canada, Japan, Australia)

2) Where we can actually agree a deal as we share standards (EU, US, Canada, Japan, Australia) 

You're not answering the question. Nobody is trying to have it both ways. Global trade is not the question. Britain's trade with the world overall and how it breaks down is what we are talking about. So why, when the percentage of our trade with the EU is diminishing while our trade with the rest of the world is increasing, does it make sense for us to carry on as we are behind a huge tarriff wall? You keep banging on about India and China as if Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and others don't exist. They are vastly different entities to the 1970s when we joined the EEC also. As is much of South America and parts of the Middle East. I'm sure we'll go to the USA, Canada and Australia first but there's so much more. Quite frankly the EU should be thinking the same way. But it doesn't does it.

 

Posted
20 minutes ago, paulhanley said:

You're not answering the question. Nobody is trying to have it both ways. Global trade is not the question. Britain's trade with the world overall and how it breaks down is what we are talking about. So why, when the percentage of our trade with the EU is diminishing while our trade with the rest of the world is increasing, does it make sense for us to carry on as we are behind a huge tarriff wall? You keep banging on about India and China as if Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and others don't exist. They are vastly different entities to the 1970s when we joined the EEC also. As is much of South America and parts of the Middle East. I'm sure we'll go to the USA, Canada and Australia first but there's so much more. Quite frankly the EU should be thinking the same way. But it doesn't does it.

 

What question? 

Answer my question, why prioritise a US trade deal if they are a diminishing part of the global economy in the same way the EU are, it doesn’t make sense to me! 

I also think to just look at our % trade as binary as EU and Non-EU is also misleading. Of the Non-EU trade how much of that growth has come from India & China? It’s a huge chunk and as we have discussed, we are unlikely to get a free trade deal for one reason or another. If you strip the Indian and Chinese growth out, would you still be making this point? 

Of the rest, how much has come on the back of the trade deals that we have set up with those non- EU countries through the EU trading block? 
 

Posted
1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

I think you're right, hence keeping pushing for the current deadline.

All things being equal, I would prefer it to go through now though, perhaps an olive branch of offering to stretch the deadline to parliament would help the programme motion pass, but that might be seen as an opportunity by ne'er-do-wells.

Not sure to be honest, guess we'll see.

I cannot see it going through tonight.

Posted
1 hour ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Labour does not trust Boris and nor should  he trust them,  the relationship has totally broke down, I don’t blame him for refusing to agree, this is now all about the next GE and Boris knows he has labour at his mercy. 

So you are admitting that neither you nor Boris cares about delivering Brexit it’s just about political gamesmanship?

Posted
51 minutes ago, paulhanley said:

You're not answering the question. Nobody is trying to have it both ways. Global trade is not the question. Britain's trade with the world overall and how it breaks down is what we are talking about. So why, when the percentage of our trade with the EU is diminishing while our trade with the rest of the world is increasing, does it make sense for us to carry on as we are behind a huge tarriff wall? You keep banging on about India and China as if Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and others don't exist. They are vastly different entities to the 1970s when we joined the EEC also. As is much of South America and parts of the Middle East. I'm sure we'll go to the USA, Canada and Australia first but there's so much more. Quite frankly the EU should be thinking the same way. But it doesn't does it.

 

If you focus your efforts you are always going to grow quicker off a smaller base but at the end of the day it is still a smaller base. Who's going to guarantee the world remains stable enough to ensure we have the growth from these emerging economies you keep papping on about? No one and we have seen over the last 3 years whilst Trump has been elected how unstable the world is right now. When you face into such head winds you are more secure with the trading partners that you have a longstanding relationship with. I have no idea what you do for a living but it's certainly not in a commercial role as your view of the world doesn't make sense

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

I cannot see it going through tonight.

Me neither.

Listening to this; it's the same old arguments. Plenty just won't vote for anything.

Not really any great need for a lengthy debate as so many already insisting it's shite.

Similarly, plenty others already made their mind up to back it.

May as well just vote for it all now. Or against.

Edited by Tonge moor green jacket
Posted
20 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Our trade with the rest of the world is increasing while we're still in the EU, so we have to leave the EU? 

No, we should stay.

Posted
12 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

So you are admitting that neither you nor Boris cares about delivering Brexit it’s just about political gamesmanship?

I said earlier today I’m happy to give it a month for proper scrutiny, perhaps you don’t read my posts when they don’t fit in your comfort zone. 

Posted
2 hours ago, boltondiver said:

I think you are wrong on this.

you aren’t usually, but our MPs have seen most of this before.

any stuff around needing more time is a smokescreen 

I’ve an inkling you may just be right on this G old boy.

Posted
12 minutes ago, Salford Trotter said:

If you focus your efforts you are always going to grow quicker off a smaller base but at the end of the day it is still a smaller base. Who's going to guarantee the world remains stable enough to ensure we have the growth from these emerging economies you keep papping on about? No one and we have seen over the last 3 years whilst Trump has been elected how unstable the world is right now. When you face into such head winds you are more secure with the trading partners that you have a longstanding relationship with. I have no idea what you do for a living but it's certainly not in a commercial role as your view of the world doesn't make sense

It's pointless discussing any topic  (Brexit or otherwise) with a democracy denier. Your principles are lower than a snake's belly. You need another session with your grief counsellor.

Posted
1 minute ago, miamiwhite said:

I’ve an inkling you may just be right on this G old boy.

Looking that way. Majority have clearly made their mind up. One mon just said views are entrenched. Let's face it Corbyn has said on two occasions it's a bad deal before details were released.

Looking like an election.

 

Posted
Just now, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Looking that way. Majority have clearly made their mind up. One mon just said views are entrenched. Let's face it Corbyn has said on two occasions it's a bad deal before details were released.

Looking like an election.

 

But Corbyn won’t let us have an election

 

more months of stuck hiatus/interregnum 

Posted
Just now, ZicoKelly said:

 

Our Chairman told me this today; clearly not an original thought!

Posted
3 hours ago, Spider said:

I just think a GE would end in the same shitty stalemate. Hung parliament, utter confusion and blockages everywhere.

 

Your right, a Referendum would be crystal clear

Whoever is the next Government, even with a small majority, they will have to see Brexit through to the end, as well as deal with all the domestic issues, economy, NHS, immigration etc.

Surely it’s not that difficult for voters to look at the overall picture and decide which Party they think is best to take us forward, unless the losers decide they won’t accept the result of a GE

Posted
52 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

What question? 

Answer my question, why prioritise a US trade deal if they are a diminishing part of the global economy in the same way the EU are, it doesn’t make sense to me! 

I also think to just look at our % trade as binary as EU and Non-EU is also misleading. Of the Non-EU trade how much of that growth has come from India & China? It’s a huge chunk and as we have discussed, we are unlikely to get a free trade deal for one reason or another. If you strip the Indian and Chinese growth out, would you still be making this point? 

Of the rest, how much has come on the back of the trade deals that we have set up with those non- EU countries through the EU trading block? 
 

Yes I absolutely would still be making the point. You're quite fond of singling out China and India as a huge chunk of the non-EU growth but you don't present evidence. I don't doubt that it's a large proportion but let's see the colour of your money with some stats. Unless you can prove that those two nations make up a totally overwhelming proportion of the change your point begins to pale significantly.

The US is a huge country with major ties to the UK. You could say the same about much of the rest of what is sometimes referred to as the Anglosphere. It's madness that we don't already have a trade arrangement with the USA and the others already and by not doing so we are missing several tricks - whether or not the US is a diminishing part of world trade. 

By constantly stressing the point about diminishing chunks of world trade you simply further emphasise the point that the EU is not the be all and end all. in the way that it may have been in the 70s.  All of the countries I listed are vastly different entities to their status when we entered the EEC. 

We can do better than what the EU negotiates because we'll be negotiating something that is bespoke and mututally beneficial for both us and whichever nation we're doing a trade deal with. That's just not what we get when the EU negotiates. 

I stress once again - this is a healthy debate about this nation's trade policy. It's the first time we've been able to have it for decades. I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it.

 

Posted

Experts in law making and parliamentary process all say there simply isn’t enough time. I don’t really think a suggestion that refusing some extra time is reasonable at all. And it clearly shows the game for what it is.

 

Posted
11 minutes ago, Moon boy said:

Is it?

It is 

Unless it isn’t 

Posted
22 minutes ago, paulhanley said:

It's pointless discussing any topic  (Brexit or otherwise) with a democracy denier. Your principles are lower than a snake's belly. You need another session with your grief counsellor.

😂 It's not me that needs counselling I can assure you of that. 

Posted
20 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

But Corbyn won’t let us have an election

 

more months of stuck hiatus/interregnum 

Think the pressure would be difficult for him to resist.

A deal is now agreed and an extension applied for. The EU sort of intimating that they'd want an election during an extension.

Continued procrastination would surely cost his lot even more votes.

But, he may be more than happy to go out in a blaze Tory fighting and keep on blocking.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.