The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[Mrr T]

don4l said:

Mrr T said:

don4l said:

Mrr T said:

It interesting because one thing we do know is any hard brexit would devastate the UK food export industry.

Do we have a large trade surplus in food?

We do export quite a lot.

https://www.fdf.org.uk/exports/ukexports.aspx

I didn't ask about exports.

I asked if we had a large trade surplus.

Do you know the answer?

Don4l still not thinking before you post? I did not mention whether we have a surplus in food or not. Indeed, any monetary calculation of deficit or surplus would be pointless since foods are not interchangeable.

I assume we have a shortage in oranges but likely a surplus in milk. Should we reduce the amount of land used for cows and turn it over to orange growing? I think that might not work!!!!

What we do have is a successful food exporting business which would be crippled by an exit from the EU without some form of agreement which covered food exports.

[///ajd]

I suppose they could be dual use.

1. They could sink EU vessels trying to fish in our waters, whilst we still export 66% of our shellfish tariff free into the EU.
2. They could sink any immigrant hoards in avons.



Does anyone remember when the French used to burn our sheep in their lorries?

Here they are tipping our fish. No scope for any escalated antagonism here then.

[Northern Munkee]

///ajd said:

I suppose they could be dual use.

1. They could sink EU vessels trying to fish in our waters, whilst we still export 66% of our shellfish tariff free into the EU.
2. They could sink any immigrant hoards in avons.



Does anyone remember when the French used to burn our sheep in their lorries?

Here they are tipping our fish. No scope for any escalated antagonism here then.

LOL!

[B'stard Child]

Mrr T said:

don4l said:

Mrr T said:

don4l said:

Mrr T said:

It interesting because one thing we do know is any hard brexit would devastate the UK food export industry.

Do we have a large trade surplus in food?

We do export quite a lot.

https://www.fdf.org.uk/exports/ukexports.aspx

I didn't ask about exports.

I asked if we had a large trade surplus.

Do you know the answer?

Don4l still not thinking before you post? I did not mention whether we have a surplus in food or not. Indeed, any monetary calculation of deficit or surplus would be pointless since foods are not interchangeable.

I assume we have a shortage in oranges but likely a surplus in milk. Should we reduce the amount of land used for cows and turn it over to orange growing? I think that might not work!!!!

What we do have is a successful food exporting business which would be crippled by an exit from the EU without some form of agreement which covered food exports.

And your belief is that there will be no agreement??

Just so I'm clear.......

This is what tiddles me off, the negotiations for the terms of agreement haven't even been started yet and it appears that many people who voted to remain cannot see that anything at all will be negotiated and agreed.....

I'm sure we will not get to "have cake and eat it" but where compromise is in the best interest of EU and UK it will be easy/straightforward to tick those items off the list. It's common sense surely?

Unless people believe that the EU will "self harm" in order to ensure that the possibility of other countries also trying to leave the "experiment" is greatly diminished. If this is the case then I can't see any countries willing to join and help with the expansion and it's not a great advert for the "club" either.

Reason to leave number 16 "5th biggest economy in the world - 5th FFS"

Even if we do "suffer" as a result of leaving it won't be lasting damage it will be short term - businesses will find a way round the issues.

[alfie2244]

Potatoes said:

"Brexit, the most retarded economic decision ever made by an educated society"
- Potatoes McGee, generic PH user

You don't sound very chipper.

[FiF]

Wouldn't an immigrant hoard be welcomed according to visa regulations as clearly financially self sufficient.

[citizensm1th]

Northern Munkee said:

B'stard Child said:

citizensm1th said:

B'stard Child said:

citizensm1th said:

Digga said:

Northern Munkee said:

citizensm1th said:

Id like to know how we will patrol the Uk,s waters ,maybe we should think about re arming trawlers

A proper coast guard, like every other significant country with a coast?

I just checked and Wikki says we have a navy, sort of.

hahahahaha now i know your smoking somthing

the uk,s current fisheries protection fleet consists of

4 R.N. patrol vessels one of which is in the Falklands covering English and welsh waters
they need to patrol approximately 60,000 square miles of sea(thats just english and welsh waters)


Scottish waters are patroled by
3 Scottish fisheries protection vessels and two aircraft

An opportunity to build a few more ships - bring back national service and get some of the 3,000,000 people back to useful employment

Can't see any downsides myself









Well apart from being seasick but that passes after a while for most people and if they've been unemployed for any length of time (like their whole life) then sitting in front of daytime TV eating junk food means that being sick might have some added health benefits (besides the sea air)

hello 1952

two replies

1. I am not a number I am a free man

2. Why on earth would it be 1952 - national service finished in 1963.

citizensm1th said:

I wonder what the cost of that would be?

Well obviously the Ships would be a cost but we are paying the people already to do nothing......

Exactly. Seem happy to spunk cash on a "garden bridge", or reallocate some the overseas aid budget

Don't think National Service is necessary doesn't have to be big, fold Fisheries into it, incorporate into the Border Force, if Iceland can afford a coast guard then the fk can't we?

Edited by Northern Munkee on Friday 23 December 13:54

the Icelandic coast guard consists of 4 vessels wow a truly mighty giant of a naval power

this made made me chuckle

"Today the Coast Guard remains Iceland's premier fighting force equipped with armed patrol vessels and aircraft and partaking in peacekeeping operations in foreign lands.

The Coast Guard has four vessels and four aircraft (one fixed wing and three helicopters) at their disposal."


btw the coast guard is it .Iceland has no other defence force so to ask why Iceland can afford a coast guard when we cant is a dumb in the ex stream.

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

2. They could sink any immigrant hoards in avons.

I'm amazed we managed to get as far as have into this volume without this sort of rubbish, but the usual suspect always drags it down to his level!

[B'stard Child]

citizensm1th said:

B'stard Child said:

citizensm1th said:

B'stard Child said:

citizensm1th said:

Digga said:

Northern Munkee said:

citizensm1th said:

Id like to know how we will patrol the Uk,s waters ,maybe we should think about re arming trawlers

A proper coast guard, like every other significant country with a coast?

I just checked and Wikki says we have a navy, sort of.

hahahahaha now i know your smoking somthing

the uk,s current fisheries protection fleet consists of

4 R.N. patrol vessels one of which is in the Falklands covering English and welsh waters
they need to patrol approximately 60,000 square miles of sea(thats just english and welsh waters)


Scottish waters are patroled by
3 Scottish fisheries protection vessels and two aircraft

An opportunity to build a few more ships - bring back national service and get some of the 3,000,000 people back to useful employment

Can't see any downsides myself









Well apart from being seasick but that passes after a while for most people and if they've been unemployed for any length of time (like their whole life) then sitting in front of daytime TV eating junk food means that being sick might have some added health benefits (besides the sea air)

hello 1952

two replies

1. I am not a number I am a free man

2. Why on earth would it be 1952 - national service finished in 1963.

citizensm1th said:

I wonder what the cost of that would be?

Well obviously the Ships would be a cost but we are paying the people already to do nothing......

1. If you dont think you are anything but a number to the Whitehall mandarins you not only think we are living in the 50,s you are sadly deluded as well.

I'm not living in the 50's I wasn't even born then - the I am not a number was a reference to a long running TV series Are you number 6 and CICMFP?

citizensm1th said:

2. why 1952? isn't that the golden era for brexiters?

You recognise that the referendum was carried out in 2016 - it was to overturn a mistake made somewhere between 1973 and 2008 when the common Market took a wrong turn

citizensm1th said:

3.It would be more than just the cost of the ships to take some feckless dole dosser from manchester and turn them into a sailor,we dont have the training staff or infrastructure to even make a dent in your 3 million unemployed figure.

Great points in some respects - we need to invest in training - it appears far easier/cheaper for employers to take people ready trained from outside the UK rather than develop people we already have.

Because you regard it as impossible it is therefore no point in even trying...

Why Manchester - are unemployed people just there??

OK that says more about you than it probably should....

citizensm1th said:

most spare MOD sites have or are being sold off to housing developers

Because we need to provide housing for people who are migrating here because of the levels of unemployment in the rest of the EU..... Obviously none of the 3,000,000 who are already unemployed are going to vacate the housing they already have.....

We can solve a whole number of problems with a few small steps.

Unless of course you subscribe to the view that paying people to sit at home watching day time TV and eating junk food while importing as many people as possible is the way forward?

[B'stard Child]

Northern Munkee said:

///ajd said:

I suppose they could be dual use.

1. They could sink EU vessels trying to fish in our waters, whilst we still export 66% of our shellfish tariff free into the EU.
2. They could sink any immigrant hoards in avons.



Does anyone remember when the French used to burn our sheep in their lorries?

Here they are tipping our fish. No scope for any escalated antagonism here then.

LOL!

OK guys - we could reach tipping point soon

[don'tbesilly]

B'stard Child said:

Northern Munkee said:

///ajd said:

I suppose they could be dual use.

1. They could sink EU vessels trying to fish in our waters, whilst we still export 66% of our shellfish tariff free into the EU.
2. They could sink any immigrant hoards in avons.



Does anyone remember when the French used to burn our sheep in their lorries?

Here they are tipping our fish. No scope for any escalated antagonism here then.

LOL!

OK guys - we could reach tipping point soon

The indicators are there for sure, I'm hoping the Pharmacie has the correct meds on the shelf.

[walm]

B'stard Child said:

And your belief is that there will be no agreement??

Just so I'm clear.......

This is what tiddles me off, the negotiations for the terms of agreement haven't even been started yet and it appears that many people who voted to remain cannot see that anything at all will be negotiated and agreed.....

I'm sure we will not get to "have cake and eat it" but where compromise is in the best interest of EU and UK it will be easy/straightforward to tick those items off the list. It's common sense surely?

Unless people believe that the EU will "self harm" in order to ensure that the possibility of other countries also trying to leave the "experiment" is greatly diminished. If this is the case then I can't see any countries willing to join and help with the expansion and it's not a great advert for the "club" either.

Reason to leave number 16 "5th biggest economy in the world - 5th FFS"

Even if we do "suffer" as a result of leaving it won't be lasting damage it will be short term - businesses will find a way round the issues.

I think you are absolutely right.
I just hope it doesn't all take too long.

[B'stard Child]

citizensm1th said:

the Icelandic coast guard consists of 4 vessels wow a truly mighty giant of a naval power

this made made me chuckle

"Today the Coast Guard remains Iceland's premier fighting force equipped with armed patrol vessels and aircraft and partaking in peacekeeping operations in foreign lands.

The Coast Guard has four vessels and four aircraft (one fixed wing and three helicopters) at their disposal."


btw the coast guard is it .Iceland has no other defence force so to ask why Iceland can afford a coast guard when we cant is a dumb in the ex stream.

Iceland Coastline is 4,970 km

The Falkland Islands is 1,288 km

UK Coastline is 12,429 km

USA is 19,924 km

Are you saying with all that coastline we couldn't justify a few more ships?

Sorry for the Metric units couldn't be bothered to convert to proper units

[alfie2244]

don'tbesilly said:

The indicators are there for sure, I'm hoping the Pharmacie has the correct meds on the shelf.

Wonder what the French pharmacie opening hours will be over the next week or so? Slasher could go full on meltdown by NYE when he is on here all alone whilst evryone else looks forward to a New Year starting and a new bright future for us in the UK post Brexit.

[Northern Munkee]

citizensm1th said:

Northern Munkee said:

B'stard Child said:

citizensm1th said:

B'stard Child said:

citizensm1th said:

Digga said:

Northern Munkee said:

citizensm1th said:

Id like to know how we will patrol the Uk,s waters ,maybe we should think about re arming trawlers

A proper coast guard, like every other significant country with a coast?

I just checked and Wikki says we have a navy, sort of.

hahahahaha now i know your smoking somthing

the uk,s current fisheries protection fleet consists of

4 R.N. patrol vessels one of which is in the Falklands covering English and welsh waters
they need to patrol approximately 60,000 square miles of sea(thats just english and welsh waters)


Scottish waters are patroled by
3 Scottish fisheries protection vessels and two aircraft

An opportunity to build a few more ships - bring back national service and get some of the 3,000,000 people back to useful employment

Can't see any downsides myself









Well apart from being seasick but that passes after a while for most people and if they've been unemployed for any length of time (like their whole life) then sitting in front of daytime TV eating junk food means that being sick might have some added health benefits (besides the sea air)

hello 1952

two replies

1. I am not a number I am a free man

2. Why on earth would it be 1952 - national service finished in 1963.

citizensm1th said:

I wonder what the cost of that would be?

Well obviously the Ships would be a cost but we are paying the people already to do nothing......

Exactly. Seem happy to spunk cash on a "garden bridge", or reallocate some the overseas aid budget

Don't think National Service is necessary doesn't have to be big, fold Fisheries into it, incorporate into the Border Force, if Iceland can afford a coast guard then the fk can't we?

Edited by Northern Munkee on Friday 23 December 13:54

the Icelandic coast guard consists of 4 vessels wow a truly mighty giant of a naval power

this made made me chuckle

"Today the Coast Guard remains Iceland's premier fighting force equipped with armed patrol vessels and aircraft and partaking in peacekeeping operations in foreign lands.

The Coast Guard has four vessels and four aircraft (one fixed wing and three helicopters) at their disposal."


btw the coast guard is it .Iceland has no other defence force so to ask why Iceland can afford a coast guard when we cant is a dumb in the ex stream.

Dumb in the extreme, I think you mean. No it shows that Iceland, a small island, which has a significant part of its GDP made up by fishing can manage/protect its fishing grounds effectively with a small maritime force of a few planes and a few ships. It also proves that you don't need a Type 31 Frigate armed with surface to surface, surface to air, anti submarine fighting capability to take care of a few French or Spanish trawler men who have wandered out of their part of the continental shelf. So £1bn war fighting machine is not required unless you're socialist who love to waste other people's money. Combine it with an expanded border force or Fisheries protection, or just expand those, it's only because it's winter were not seeing rubber boats and canoes across the channel from Calais, while our handful of border force boats are "patrolling", "protecting" thousands of miles of coastline, that's assuming they are not deployed to The Med.

[citizensm1th]

B'stard Child said:

citizensm1th said:

the Icelandic coast guard consists of 4 vessels wow a truly mighty giant of a naval power

this made made me chuckle

"Today the Coast Guard remains Iceland's premier fighting force equipped with armed patrol vessels and aircraft and partaking in peacekeeping operations in foreign lands.

The Coast Guard has four vessels and four aircraft (one fixed wing and three helicopters) at their disposal."


btw the coast guard is it .Iceland has no other defence force so to ask why Iceland can afford a coast guard when we cant is a dumb in the ex stream.

Iceland Coastline is 4,970 km

The Falkland Islands is 1,288 km

UK Coastline is 12,429 km

USA is 19,924 km

Are you saying with all that coastline we couldn't justify a few more ships?

Sorry for the Metric units couldn't be bothered to convert to proper units

1. the prisoner not that long running, only 17 episodes and it was crap

2. the post you quoted is in response to anothers post exclaiming that if iceland could have a coast guard why couldnt we but then you know that.

when we leave the E.U. increased fisheries protection is just another cost the U.K. will have to find the money for as per the title of the thread.

if you would like to discuss the tories habit of gutting our armed forces (normally at the most inopportune times) il gladly debate it on another thread.

[///ajd]

don'tbesilly said:

///ajd said:

2. They could sink any immigrant hoards in avons.

I'm amazed we managed to get as far as have into this volume without this sort of rubbish, but the usual suspect always drags it down to his level!

Just a joke like the armed trawlers gag.

I assume you weren't taking that seriously?

[citizensm1th]

Northern Munkee said:

citizensm1th said:

Northern Munkee said:

B'stard Child said:

citizensm1th said:

B'stard Child said:

citizensm1th said:

Digga said:

Northern Munkee said:

citizensm1th said:

Id like to know how we will patrol the Uk,s waters ,maybe we should think about re arming trawlers

A proper coast guard, like every other significant country with a coast?

I just checked and Wikki says we have a navy, sort of.

hahahahaha now i know your smoking somthing

the uk,s current fisheries protection fleet consists of

4 R.N. patrol vessels one of which is in the Falklands covering English and welsh waters
they need to patrol approximately 60,000 square miles of sea(thats just english and welsh waters)


Scottish waters are patroled by
3 Scottish fisheries protection vessels and two aircraft

An opportunity to build a few more ships - bring back national service and get some of the 3,000,000 people back to useful employment

Can't see any downsides myself









Well apart from being seasick but that passes after a while for most people and if they've been unemployed for any length of time (like their whole life) then sitting in front of daytime TV eating junk food means that being sick might have some added health benefits (besides the sea air)

hello 1952

two replies

1. I am not a number I am a free man

2. Why on earth would it be 1952 - national service finished in 1963.

citizensm1th said:

I wonder what the cost of that would be?

Well obviously the Ships would be a cost but we are paying the people already to do nothing......

Exactly. Seem happy to spunk cash on a "garden bridge", or reallocate some the overseas aid budget

Don't think National Service is necessary doesn't have to be big, fold Fisheries into it, incorporate into the Border Force, if Iceland can afford a coast guard then the fk can't we?

Edited by Northern Munkee on Friday 23 December 13:54

the Icelandic coast guard consists of 4 vessels wow a truly mighty giant of a naval power

this made made me chuckle

"Today the Coast Guard remains Iceland's premier fighting force equipped with armed patrol vessels and aircraft and partaking in peacekeeping operations in foreign lands.

The Coast Guard has four vessels and four aircraft (one fixed wing and three helicopters) at their disposal."


btw the coast guard is it .Iceland has no other defence force so to ask why Iceland can afford a coast guard when we cant is a dumb in the ex stream.

Dumb in the extreme, I think you mean. No it shows that Iceland, a small island, which has a significant part of its GDP made up by fishing can manage/protect its fishing grounds effectively with a small maritime force of a few planes and a few ships. It also proves that you don't need a Type 31 Frigate armed with surface to surface, surface to air, anti submarine fighting capability to take care of a few French or Spanish trawler men who have wandered out of their part of the continental shelf. So £1bn war fighting machine is not required unless you're socialist who love to waste other people's money. Combine it with an expanded border force or Fisheries protection, or just expand those, it's only because it's winter were not seeing rubber boats and canoes across the channel from Calais, while our handful of border force boats are "patrolling", "protecting" thousands of miles of coastline, that's assuming they are not deployed to The Med.

il point you towards our honourable friend B'stardchild,s post above iceland only has a third of the area to cover that the U.K dose ,If you think increased patrols to stop our continental friends fishing in our waters will not cost us any extra to the costs we incur now lets hear your reasoning?

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

don'tbesilly said:

///ajd said:

2. They could sink any immigrant hoards in avons.

I'm amazed we managed to get as far as have into this volume without this sort of rubbish, but the usual suspect always drags it down to his level!

Just a joke like the armed trawlers gag.

I assume you weren't taking that seriously?

As it wasn't a joke why wouldn't I have taken it seriously?

[B'stard Child]

citizensm1th said:

1. the prisoner not that long running, only 17 episodes and it was crap

to you maybe to others enjoyable - if we all liked the same thing - thought the same way - looked the same - acted the same way wouldn't be just sheep?

citizensm1th said:

2. the post you quoted is in response to anothers post exclaiming that if iceland could have a coast guard why couldnt we but then you know that.

Yep

citizensm1th said:

when we leave the E.U. increased fisheries protection is just another cost the U.K. will have to find the money for as per the title of the thread.

350 million

citizensm1th said:

if you would like to discuss the tories habit of gutting our armed forces (normally at the most inopportune times) il gladly debate it on another thread.

Have armed forces cuts always be solely down to the Tories??

But you are right it's not for this topic

But you'd support some "National service" element for the military as well as the coastguard/border patrol??