|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 4, 2018 12:31:35 GMT 1
Here's a simple maths problem. The UK car industry exports about 800,000 cars a year to the EU - just over half our car exports. Meanwhile the EU exports about 2,300,000 cars to the UK. Which figure is larger?
So here's a simple business problem, given the above. If you were running a business making cars in the UK, would you be alarmed or thrilled about the prospect of tariffs being slapped on UK-EU car trade? To help focus on this problem, imagine that the tariffs were so high that the trade stops altogether - or imagine it's banned altogether, if that helps. You've lost your biggest export market, no wonder you're moaning. But think a minute - the UK market has suddenly grown an enormous hole, where all those EU cars used to be. And it's three times the size of the market you've just lost! And who's in the best spot to fill it? There is a basic fundamental reason you're here, in the UK, making your cars, isn't there? Not because you enjoy paying the extra transport costs of delivering them to the Continent, presumably?
That's what Boris means with his Anglo-Saxon dismissal of all these IOD panjandrums, in a nutshell. Because barring a few odd exceptional cases, like Melton Mowbray pork pies and Scotch, this is the same simple maths problem across the whole economy.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jul 4, 2018 13:25:57 GMT 1
Indeed Nick, 'catastrophe'indeed - on the BBC Today programme last week a BBC political correspondent was being questioned about the Brexit options open to May - the final question was the possibility of a 'no-deal' Brexit; yes said the correspondent there is surely a possibility that we will drift on to the rocks. The questionner simply accepted this horribly biassed answer, a fleeting insight into the BBC's acclaimed'impartiality' The gross imbalance in our EU exports/imports is a card we just have not played yet; any imposition of WTO rules on such imports /exports will lead to a massive increase in our Governent revenue - we can use this bonanza to support car manufacturers here so that they reduce their EU prices by the WTO tariff price, leaving them just as competitive as previously
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Jul 5, 2018 1:18:30 GMT 1
If they're simple problems why have the Govt taken two years to fail to address them?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 5, 2018 4:42:13 GMT 1
If they're simple problems why have the Govt taken two years to fail to address them? Fair question my Glaswegian-battered friend. The glib answer would be May didn't take my sage advice. A more detailed answer would be that it seems clear that she's been plagued by far less sage advice from the civil service, in particular the Europhile Treasury. Don't ask me why - I can't get an answer from anyone why they or anyone else should think the EU is in any way a good idea. I don't know if you had the integrity to come up with one a few weeks ago when I last asked you - I strongly suspect not. In fact, I'm pretty damn sure you don't have a clue. I'll repeat my advice for what she should have done for you, given your short-term memory problems: 1) Our position my little froggy chums is that we are delighted to offer you complete and open Free Trade terms, as we now enjoy. 2) We know because M.Juncker has said it over and over at every opportunity that we can't have that without accepting free movement of all you johnny forinners, the supreme authority of your jumped-up little court, and your protectionist barriers on the rest of the world designed to protect the interests of your inefficient farmers and ensure German industry dominates Europe. We can't accept that any longer, because our over-populated island is being swamped and our indigenous working classes won't take it any more; and, you lot are so arrogantly intransigent and dismissive of our concerns that you wouldn't budge an inch on this so-called principle when Mr.Cameron so grovellingly asked you to. So, we're going to start our preparations for full WTO rules to start in two years to the day, when we'll say cheerio to you. The only exception to this will be in Northern Ireland, where we'll apply our Free Trade offer, whether you agree to it or not - and if not, you'll have to insist that our Dublin colleagues impose their own border controls, and see how long Eire will stay in your club if you do. 3) That being our position, we are of course open to any reasonable suggestion you might make that we reduce tariffs, here and there, it being in no one's real interests to impede trade. Least of all yours. 4) Oh, yes, and if you do show yourselves so willing, to get these tariffs down to the minimum that you think would save your face, and deter everyone else from deserting your sinking ship, then we might show ourselves just as willing to stump up a bit of cash, to ease your vastly inflated budget problem. If she'd gone into the negotiations with that opening position, she wouldn't have had half the problems she's been plagued with. Nor would "the business community" - their complaint is "the uncertainty", allegedly. No problems from the Brexiteers with that position. No problem from the Remoaners - didn't we just have a referendum to leave the EU, you fools, and you lost. We, and the Labour Party, have also just had an election, where we both presented manifestos to leave the EU, meaning what the referendum made clear in any case, to leave the single market, to leave the customs union, to retake control of our borders, and to resile from the authority of the EU jurisdiction. So STFU, or resign your seats.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 5, 2018 4:47:13 GMT 1
Indeed Nick, 'catastrophe'indeed - on the BBC Today programme last week a BBC political correspondent was being questioned about the Brexit options open to May - the final question was the possibility of a 'no-deal' Brexit; yes said the correspondent there is surely a possibility that we will drift on to the rocks. The questionner simply accepted this horribly biassed answer, a fleeting insight into the BBC's acclaimed'impartiality' The gross imbalance in our EU exports/imports is a card we just have not played yet; any imposition of WTO rules on such imports /exports will lead to a massive increase in our Governent revenue - we can use this bonanza to support car manufacturers here so that they reduce their EU prices by the WTO tariff price, leaving them just as competitive as previously Indeed. More so, in fact, because the EU aren't allowed to so "subsidise" their industries!
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jul 5, 2018 11:27:54 GMT 1
The simple maths is complicated by its own nature.
If you export to the EU, low tariffs are good for your business. Jobs and profits!
If you import from the EU, low tariffs are good for your business. Jobs and profits!
But if the country as a whole imports more than it exports, low tariffs mean a growing trade deficit. Less tax revenue, public services collapse, no planes for the aircraft carrier, civil strife.....
EU: good for business, bad for Britain. Now simples.
The only difference between the UK and Greece is that we have significant non-EU markets and a larger, more diverse economy, so the pain took longer to become unacceptable. And instead of rioting, we voted. That's what really pisses off the Europhiles - the stench of democracy.
Don't expect sage advice from the civil service (EU = more committees, more regulations, more promotion opportunities) or any politician (another entire parliament, regional assemblies, unelected commission posts, choose your own budget, never mind the auditors...), lawyer, or other parasite with his nose in the trough. What matters is to keep the bullshit (peace, friendship, cooperation...) flowing outward and the money flowing inward.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 5, 2018 11:38:32 GMT 1
Oh, excuse me, you did answer it! Blow me sideways.
What do we see, Clarice?
Or anything else, indeed, hmmm?
But what answer, pray tell?! I don;t care what "format" you use! Just tell us - why do you think the EU is a good idea?
I could answer this for you, if you're really so stumped. I've talked to enough people of your persuasion by now to know exactly what they really believe. Would you like me to?
I followed the arguments very carefully, as it happens. All the pros and cons from the Remain side were economic, based on highly dubious prognostications like Clegg's "3 million jobs depend on our being in the EU" and Carney's "We predict we will enter into recession immediately after a leave vote, of perhaps a 1% depth" and the Treasury's "Unemployment will rise by about 600,000 in the first year following a Leave result". Nowhere did I hear a single account of why, apart from these economic reasons - including the arguments from the science, medical, and university sectors - remaining in the EU was a good in itself. The nearest anyone came to it was from the TUC, echoed by some Labour remainers, that we owed various "workers' rights" and environmental protections to Europe, and the wicked Tories would remove them all should Leave win.
Reason and long deep thinking about the matter, in my case, thankyou.
Yeah? What "compromise" do you believe May has "offered" then?
Personally, I'd rather see Tony Blair's do that - or Alistair Campbell's would be very nice too. Peter Mandelson - he could do with a good facial remodelling. "Lord Adonis", as he likes to be known - I'd gladly hold his head in front of a Howitzer myself. Clegg - Clegg! You must admit, the entire nation would rejoice should Clegg just - spontaneously combust - a bit? Gordon Brown, the icing on your cake. I have to admit - you've got a really impressive team behind your "gut feelings" there, old chap. Don't be put off by the proven fact that they're all a bunch of liars, crooks, and failures, no sir.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 5, 2018 11:46:02 GMT 1
That's what really pisses off the Europhiles - the stench of democracy. Don't expect sage advice from the civil service (EU = more committees, more regulations, more promotion opportunities) or any politician (another entire parliament, regional assemblies, unelected commission posts, choose your own budget, never mind the auditors...), lawyer, or other parasite with his nose in the trough. What matters is to keep the bullshit (peace, friendship, cooperation...) flowing outward and the money flowing inward. Bloody hell! It's like having Boris and Gorgeous George on the same stage, or Enoch and Tony Benn. Poor Aqua...please don't feel bullied! Let's have a gentleman's agreement Alan - we'll never agree in public again. Yes?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jul 5, 2018 12:46:56 GMT 1
If they're simple problems why have the Govt taken two years to fail to address them? Because you have a predominantly Eurosceptic parliamentary party in government, funded by business (predominantly Europhilic) and led by a Europhilic Prime Minister who has no choice but to drink from a poisoned chalice into which the DUP pisses from time to time. Facing that crew of scumbags you have a ragbag Opposition of predominantly Europhilic politicians supported and elected by those who suffer most from the ravages of the EU, and led by a career Eurosceptic whose more pressing task is to herd these squalling cats into the last bastion of socialism by licking the arse of any Scot Nat who presents it. In a word, nobody in parliament gives a damn what happens, as long as he/she gets re-elected at your expense. You have had your vote, now shut up and pay your taxes.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 5, 2018 14:09:50 GMT 1
If they're simple problems why have the Govt taken two years to fail to address them? Because you have a predominantly Eurosceptic parliamentary party in government, funded by business (predominantly Europhilic) and led by a Europhilic Prime Minister who has no choice but to drink from a poisoned chalice into which the DUP pisses from time to time. Facing that crew of scumbags you have a ragbag Opposition of predominantly Europhilic politicians supported and elected by those who suffer most from the ravages of the EU, and led by a career Eurosceptic whose more pressing task is to herd these squalling cats into the last bastion of socialism by licking the arse of any Scot Nat who presents it. In a word, nobody in parliament gives a damn what happens, as long as he/she gets re-elected at your expense. You have had your vote, now shut up and pay your taxes. Jeez, we agree again, I'm gonna have to lie down and have a rethink! "...by licking the arse of any Scot Nat who presents it." Ugh, thanks a bunch, no I'm not, not with that image of Ms.Sturgeon polluting me nog. This morning all I had to worry about was Novochok poisoning.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 6, 2018 5:25:59 GMT 1
The simple maths is complicated by its own nature. If you export to the EU, low tariffs are good for your business. Jobs and profits! If you import from the EU, low tariffs are good for your business. Jobs and profits! Yes, that's the fundamental argument for the Free Trade principle, and now the whole globalist agenda. Everybody profits, the whole world gets richer, there'll be fewer and fewer poor people...and on the whole that's broadly true, it's worked and is working. Not necessarily less tax revenue - your people are still buying those imports, and your shops are still selling them. So your economic growth becomes more and more consumption driven. The real cost comes through the depreciation of your currency such a trade deficit must entail, even when your exchange rates are fixed or you're on a gold or silver standard. Your living standards must fall as your deficit continues and imports cost more (and if your consumption doesn't fall in line, as it hasn't, then indebtedness - personal, corporate, and national - is the inevitable result). Your exports will be less expensive for others to buy, and so the deficit should balance out over time - but only as your currency has fallen, and everyone's living standards have reduced, and you have in place a system whereby your exports can increase: that is, you actually make things to sell, and your competitors who are hopefully buying your stuff in an ideal (tariff free) world are remaining relatively static. But neither of these things have applied since the war, so the argument above for the equitable benefits of a Free Trade World has not worked - or only for some, those very few who can straddle the different markets, taking advantage of such fluctuating living standards and manufacturing capabilities, and who are immune from such currency values because they can move their money around as they choose, taking advantage of the very exchange balances they themselves most induce. The key difference is the Greeks are really stuffed because they don't have the above mechanism for re-balancing the value of their currency. Thus their falling of the relative value of their Euro really hits home. It's worth noting at this point that Aqua's "gut feeling" - and all the Remoaners who share it - would have put us in the same position. A petty personal power-struggle between Blair and Brown was the purely fortuitous godsend that saved us. These are all rather high-falutin' macro-economic issues, and broadly to the extent Free Trade is an overall good it applies just as much to the EU-World trade as it does to the UK-EU exchange - in which case what's the point of this protectionist club in the first place? The point I was trying to make with my simple maths was more to do with individual businesses, the people who are saying so loudly that tariffs will be a "catastrophe" for them and, collectively, therefore for the country. My point is that for the overwhelming majority of them, with very few exceptions, the market share that they'll lose in Europe because of new barriers is more than made up for by the market share available to gain here, in the UK (never mind the new markets opened up to them because we'll be free of the EU's tariff regime with various other parts of the world.) Because, as you say, we're in deficit to them - and this is true in nearly every sector of the economy. There are businesses like Airbus where the maths become somewhat more complicated - and if you're determined to make it so, the same complications exist with the car sector. Parts and supply chains and so forth. There's a great deal to be said about all that scare-mongering and obfuscating too, but the bottom line is that such complications are entirely unnecessary. They have to be introduced - and it's not us who have ever proposed introducing them, and it's not us who will ultimately pay the heavier price if Brussels insists on doing so.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jul 8, 2018 8:06:08 GMT 1
Parts and supply chains my arse.
I work with a Belarussian company on projects that involve combining American-designed x-ray generators that are manufactured in Japan, with Chinese-made computers, British electronic systems incorporating German components (or is it the other way around?, local software and Hungarian electric motors, into a mechanical rig made in Belarus with metals imported from just about everywhere. Sometimes it is easier for me to test the kit in the factory, sometimes we stage it in the UK for testing and demonstration then ship it to wherever. When we need stuff, we order it by fax and pay with Visa who sort out the exchange rates and duties. Customers pay in dollars or euros. It keeps the accountant on his toes a bit, but more to the point we are sourcing whatever we want from wherever it is available, and exporting capital equipment all over the world from a sales office in London. The European Union is just the bit we have to fly over to get to Minsk. Meeting EU safety standards is no problem because they are (indeed have to be) the same as the international standards anyway, just "ratified, homologated and codified" (at your expense) into 27 languages, none of which is actually used in international commerce.
What scares Airbus is the European Aviation Safety Authority. This corrupt bunch of scumbags can delay the licensing of any new design for as long as they like, at unlimited cost to the manufacturer, whist they translate the documentation and complain about the angle of the commas. Mysteriously, aircraft designed and manufactured within the EU seem to get approved without modification let or hindance, but if the bribe fee is paid in dollars it can take many years and cost many millions to change the specification of the toilet door bolt.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 8, 2018 10:41:15 GMT 1
Parts and supply chains my arse. Enough arse-related imagery - ed. Thanks Alan - quite a while since I had to look a word up. Only to find that hindance relates yet again to arses. I'm a bit puzzled about the regulation spaghetti about parts and what-not - there seems to be a lot of contradictory expertise out there. Some say the key factor about whether tariffs apply to parts is the source of origin - more than 40% of the final product, and it's deemed subject to duty. Otherwise, the where the parts are made is irrelevant in any case. Is that right? Or is the BBC talking bullshit yet again? So - the wings of airbus: they can't add up to more than 40% of an airbus or one of those elephant things, can they?
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Jul 8, 2018 18:55:53 GMT 1
In recent times we have had James Dyson, the boss of Weathersppons and Mr Forte the Hotelier all coming out in favour of leaving. Now whatever your thoughts about those people they employ thousands of people directly, and tens of thousands indirectly. One problem with all these negotiations is they are being carried out by politicians. They should have some solid business brains in that team, because although my business is very small i have to negotiate every single day with large companies. 'We pay on 90 days'. Well you might, but it is the seller who sets the terms and if you don't believe me walk into Tesco, get a load of shopping and tell them you will pay them tomorrow. I might be a little more polite than that, but you get my drift.
I thought long and hard before i voted leave, and find it very insulting when people accuse me of being racist, a member of UKIP and all else besides. I do not think we should even consider 'negotiating' with the metaphoric gun to our heads. We put the ball firmly back in their court. We are laving, so please tell us how you would like to continue trading with us, then we will consider if it is worth trading with you.
And all the bloody nonsense about us requiring visas to go on holiday? I wonder how Spain would react to losing all the millions of Brits and their money if Europe made it difficult for us to travel.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jul 9, 2018 10:16:41 GMT 1
In recent times we have had James Dyson, the boss of Weathersppons and Mr Forte the Hotelier all coming out in favour of leaving. Now whatever your thoughts about those people they employ thousands of people directly, and tens of thousands indirectly. One problem with all these negotiations is they are being carried out by politicians. They should have some solid business brains in that team, because although my business is very small i have to negotiate every single day with large companies. 'We pay on 90 days'. Well you might, but it is the seller who sets the terms and if you don't believe me walk into Tesco, get a load of shopping and tell them you will pay them tomorrow. I might be a little more polite than that, but you get my drift. I thought long and hard before i voted leave, and find it very insulting when people accuse me of being racist, a member of UKIP and all else besides. I do not think we should even consider 'negotiating' with the metaphoric gun to our heads. We put the ball firmly back in their court. We are laving, so please tell us how you would like to continue trading with us, then we will consider if it is worth trading with you. And all the bloody nonsense about us requiring visas to go on holiday? I wonder how Spain would react to losing all the millions of Brits and their money if Europe made it difficult for us to travel. Agreed. The departure of Davies is leading to interesting times.
|
|