OT: They all admit they were wrong eventually.

https://uktostay.eu/2017/07/04/vote-leave-director-says-leaving-may-error/
--
*A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times more memory.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/07/2017 15:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

LOL! Cummings apparently laments the British government not taking enough advantage of the opportunities Brexit provides and says "in some possible branches of the future leaving will be an error". I agree. Power has been handed back to our politicians. It's up to them now. They can make things better or worse.
At any rate, Remainers change the sense of what was said into "leaving may be an error" as if the whole idea was bad and he was having second thoughts about Brexit. Yet that's not what Cummings was saying.
Another try at misleading the public. It follows on from _many_ half truths and even outright lies from the Remain side during the referendum and since.
--
James Harris


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The thingis the Eu has become so big and ciumbersone nobody really understands which bits benefit us and which don't any more. That was why both sides had muddled campaigns and why we still have the feeling that nobody knows what the heck is going on. Brian
--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Gaff used his keyboard to write :

..and if you don't fully understand it, where your contribution is going and you are getting in return - always best not to have any involvment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/07/17 08:25, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Ultimately my main reason for Brexit is that the EU is already simply too big and too centralised to be an effective instrument of governance.
Worse, by binding the whole continent into a so called integrated society, if it makes a bad mistake the whole continet goes down.
Nations reflect geography. People in Tuscany do not live like people in Finland. The same rules are not appropriate.
What the EU sdhould have been, is a tallking shop for all the heads to state of Europe to discuss mutually beneficial ptrojects. Not co-opted by big business to protect their ineterests and profits in an unholy bargain with political idealists hell bent on turning Europe in to a neoCommunist state..
--
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher used his keyboard to write :

+1
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/07/2017 08:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
...

Definitely! The EU could have devised a set of schemes that nations were free to opt in to or not, as suited them best. Instead, the EU insists that members hand over power to people the centre who design what they think is best for everyone. It is a straitjacket with a hair shirt inside.
--
James Harris


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/07/2017 09:49, James Harris wrote:

Well the EU does stuff like
making it illegal to make/sell dangerous stuff to member states. stop exploitation of the workers let *you* decide where you want to work
It doesn't decide what benefits a state pays but it does say you have to treat residents the same.
It makes it illegal for a member to charge tariffs on another members goods and or service.
It gives a veto to stop many things that can happen.
We have chucked much of that away for no tangible gains at all.
When the dust settles we will still obey the regulations and have free movement of workers and pay into the EU. We won't have any say or a veto.
Real win that!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/07/2017 12:24, dennis@home wrote:

You think we couldn't do that?

For various meanings of "exploitation". Its economic policies have led to mass youth unemployment and unwise levels of emigration.

True, though it also promotes freedom of movement, not just freedom of labour.

True, making states with generous benefits magnets.

While charging high tariffs to nations outside. And thereby weakening its own production.

Every time the EU has asked for more powers the British public have been reassured noisily that there is a veto. Then, quietly, a British PM has given that veto away. Once gone, it's gone. No more veto.

I'm not sure what you mean by tangible. The future is never that.

We'll have to comply with EU regulations for stuff we sell to the EU, sure, just as we have to comply with American regulations for stuff we sell to the USA, and to Japanese regulations for stuff we sell to Japan, etc.
You want a gain? Over the next 15 years 90% of world growth is expected to come from outside Europe. And the EU is always far too slow at opening up new markets. The growth is there for the taking. And we in the UK are, by history and inclination, a trading nation. Leaving the EU won't be easy. They will see to that. But there is a world to be rediscovered. And that's where our future wealth is to come from.
--
James Harris


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 13:39:04 UTC+1, James Harris wrote:

For most this is a logical step we supply fishermans friends to many countries some contries only order particular flavours and not others so that's what we do. Maybe the EU would insist we supply flavours no one wants, wouldn't suprise me.
It might suprise some on here that 2000+ years ago we were supplying tin to Rome this was long before the EEC existed, and for most (excluding admin) there's a thing called supply and demand. If the EU requires that we ship in tonnes we ship in tonnes, If the USA wants us to ship in imperial tons we can do that too.
The EU still uses differnt plugs and sockets compared to the UK (suprised they haven't insisted we change over) just like in the USA. When buyinng a Mac they come with UK plugs, and I'm pretty sure that those that buy idevices all get them with the correct type of plug.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/07/2017 14:41, whisky-dave wrote:

Don't talk drivel, drivel.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Very good. Now tell what products etc we currently make that these countries who will produce that 90% growth will want to buy?
--
Is the hardness of the butter proportional to the softness of the bread?*

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/07/2017 16:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Goods and services, naturally.
--
James Harris


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Right. So we go through 15 years of drastically falling living standards in the hope that we can sell things to new markets which may not even happen?
Interesting that Brexiteers said 'never listen to experts when it comes to predicting our economy' Except when they find the odd one they agree with.
--
*It doesn't take a genius to spot a goat in a flock of sheep *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/07/2017 18:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The future's uncertain. Welcome to reality. But we as a country will almost certainly be far faster than the EU in arranging new trade deals. It has the weight but it is very, very bad at opening up new markets. While we are inside we have no choice but to wait, to cajole, to ask, the enjoin. But once outside, we can start to build our own trade. I expect we will soon leave the EU far behind.

Who is invoking experts? Not me.
--
James Harris


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That’s not true of all of aircraft engines, docos and TV series and financial services.
You don’t need trade deals to flog all that stuff.

Don’t have to be outside to do that. The only thing that being outside requires is new trade deals quite a bit quicker than the EU can manage due to the problem that you mentioned, but its very far from clear that say the trade deal with Canada will in fact result in much change in trade between the EU and Canada at all. Its mostly just piss and wind.
Same with any trade deal between Britain and India and China too, wont have any real effect IMO, essentially because trade in goods and services happens anyway.

In the trade deals signed, sure. But I doubt will have much effect at all in the actual trade in goods and services. That’s driven by other factors like the fact that there are only two major aircraft engine manufacturers left now and the fact that Britain does much better in stuff like docos and TV series than anyone else in the EU for various reasons.
Financial services in spades.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So everyone seems to think. The problem being all major markets already have deals with others. Making a deal with us can have the same implications as the EU making a deal. Everything is inter-related. Hence it taking such a long time.

There you go again. Your optimism sadly has no basis in fact. Where are all the countries queuing up for a deal with the UK? India did show some interest - but said it would need free movement of people as part of the deal.

Did you get the figure you quoted for world growth in emerging markets out of your own head, then?
--
*Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So anyone with even half a clue knows. How much difference it actually makes to the volume of trade tho is another matter.

With lots of others in fact. So its no big deal to have another with Britain.

The real reason it isnt quick is that some like the US tries to include ambit claims like being able to sue in the courts if some corporate doesn’t like some govt policy and how long stuff like patents on medicines last etc.
But that’s no big deal, every country that matters is already a WTO signatory and is free to trade under WTO rules and see if it can do better than that with a specific agreement.

Quite a few of the commonwealth countrys are.

But didn’t say that there would be no agreement without that.
And the other commonwealth countrys didn’t say anything like that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/07/2017 00:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Agreed. These things are complicated and inter-related. But consider that when the EU cuts a trade deal it has to satisfy at least 29 different parties - the country being negotiated with and 28 EU nations. And that really does cause slowdowns. Olive growers in Greece can require certain concessions. Shoemakers in Italy can hold out for conditions they feel they need. Etc. And we've seen that trade deals need approval across all 28 - even to sub-regions of Belgium.
By contrast, bilateral deals need agreement basically from just the two sides.
Here are some examples of how long trade deals took - faster and slower: http://pensites.com/politics/article-1157/How-long-would-it-take-the-UK-to-make-trade-deals .

I was clear which part was opinion. But I will explain the basis of it.

I've not been keeping a list of countries who've indicated a desire to open up new UK trade but someone who has reckons there's over 30 of them. From a quick scan I see: USA, Israel, New Zealand, Chile, Australia, Japan, Gulf states, etc.
The number, however, is largely moot. IMO the UK would not be able to do so many deals in parallel. It would have to prioritise them. I would expect existing EU-brokered deals to be adopted, in the main, because that would suit both sides, and then the UK to focus on specific countries first.
Don't forget that while it may not feel it at times, we are one of the richest countries in the world and have a lot of technical expertise. Countries want access to our markets, our skills, and our businesses.

About 90% of future growth being expected to come from outside Europe? That was the assessment of the EU.
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/new-trade-strategy/
--
James Harris


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You've totally missed the point. A bi-lateral deal would only be easy if both countries had no deals with others. Which every major player in the world already has.
Say NZ has a deal with Oz. Part of that trade is NZ supplying lamb to OZ. The UK wants a deal with Oz, and wants to sell UK lamb to Oz. NZ would certainly object to the competition. Now multiply that by all such goods. And you get some idea why doing any new deal takes many many years.
Many Bexiteers have the idea that (say) Oz would be so desperate to trade with the UK that they'd 'do a Brexit' on their deal with NZ. I think they live in La La land.
--
*Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.