Positivity - The Future

[SeeFive]

Camoradi said:

EG: UK vehicle sales 2015

Audi 170,000
BMW 167,000
Mercedes 154,000
VW 217,000


Throw that away...No chance

What? Totalling up all those cars, at a average price of say, £40k per car, that is only just over £28billion. That's not going to bother them at all.

Ok, £40 too high for what everyone on here calls a quality car? At £30k it is 21 billion. Piffling. No trade deal, Nein!!! I am sure Greece will buy them.

[Countdown]

Camoradi said:

EG: UK vehicle sales 2015

Audi 170,000
BMW 167,000
Mercedes 154,000
VW 217,000


Throw that away...No chance

The Germans are not going to stop us buying german cars. However what they might do is put tariffs on UK goods so that it's cheaper for EU customers to buy EU goods instead. We retaliate by putting tariffs on their goods. The problem is that we can't buy german cars from anywhere else.

So we lose exports and pay more for our imports - excellent result!

[s2art]

Countdown said:

Camoradi said:

EG: UK vehicle sales 2015

Audi 170,000
BMW 167,000
Mercedes 154,000
VW 217,000


Throw that away...No chance

The Germans are not going to stop us buying german cars. However what they might do is put tariffs on UK goods so that it's cheaper for EU customers to buy EU goods instead. We retaliate by putting tariffs on their goods. The problem is that we can't buy german cars from anywhere else.

So we lose exports and pay more for our imports - excellent result!

Any impediment to free trade is potentially bad. But JLR, Nissan, Honda, Vauxhall etc would get a bigger share of the home market so it may compensate a little.

[Countdown]

s2art said:

Any impediment to free trade is potentially bad. But JLR, Nissan, Honda, Vauxhall etc would get a bigger share of the home market so it may compensate a little.

True, but if that's because they're being bought by people who would normally buy Audis. VWs etc, then they're having to settle for second best. Not ideal really, especially when it could have been avoided.

[lostkiwi]

Countdown said:

s2art said:

Any impediment to free trade is potentially bad. But JLR, Nissan, Honda, Vauxhall etc would get a bigger share of the home market so it may compensate a little.

True, but if that's because they're being bought by people who would normally buy Audis. VWs etc, then they're having to settle for second best. Not ideal really, especially when it could have been avoided.

And internal sales don't address our balance of payments issues enough.

[RYH64E]

s2art said:

Any impediment to free trade is potentially bad. But JLR, Nissan, Honda, Vauxhall etc would get a bigger share of the home market so it may compensate a little.

Until they remember that they only based themselves in the UK because it was a convenient access point for the much larger EU market. I don't expect them all to relocate on day one, but considering there's an import tariff of 10% on cars imported into the EU I wouldn't expect them to hang around long term.

[s2art]

Countdown said:

s2art said:

Any impediment to free trade is potentially bad. But JLR, Nissan, Honda, Vauxhall etc would get a bigger share of the home market so it may compensate a little.

True, but if that's because they're being bought by people who would normally buy Audis. VWs etc, then they're having to settle for second best. Not ideal really, especially when it could have been avoided.

Not convinced they are second best. Its badge snobbery, is VW really better than Nissan?

[SeeFive]

s2art said:

Not convinced they are second best. Its badge snobbery, is VW really better than Nissan?

Doesn't matter when it is leased or on PCP.

[TeamD]

Countdown said:

The Germans are not going to stop us buying german cars. However what they might do is put tariffs on UK goods so that it's cheaper for EU customers to buy EU goods instead. We retaliate by putting tariffs on their goods. The problem is that we can't buy german cars from anywhere else.

So we lose exports and pay more for our imports - excellent result!

And what would our response be?

[RobinOakapple]

LHRFlightman said:

RobinOakapple said:

Derek Smith said:

RobinOakapple said:

Anyone who thinks Boris won't be the next PM is dreaming.

There's little chance he will be the next leader of the tories. Their voting system is internal and he's upset too many MPs for them to vote for him without being forced to.

If he does get the job, and self destruct is an option for the tories, then I won't vote for his party.

I'm positive about that.

He may have upset them, but that won't matter because they will vote for the PM that has the best chance of each of them retaining their seat and the Tories staying in power at the next election. It's all about the votes baby, and he will get them.

He won't get my vote. He's a duplicitous who should be shot.

A politician duplicitous? You can not be serious!

[Camoradi]

Countdown said:

The Germans are not going to stop us buying german cars.

Only an idiot would even think that was a possibility. I certainly didn't.

I was referring to the possibility that if the EU put tariffs on UK goods, then WE could put tariffs on German car imports to the UK.

[RobinOakapple]

The doom merchants are fond of warning us about the negative consequences of our actions as if these things (such as import tariffs) are going to happen automatically. They aren't. If they do happen it will be result of decisions and those decisions will be based on reasons.

So what are these reasons? Revenge? Spite?

[Mark Benson]

RobinOakapple said:

The doom merchants are fond of warning us about the negative consequences of our actions as if these things (such as import tariffs) are going to happen automatically. They aren't. If they do happen it will be result of decisions and those decisions will be based on reasons.

So what are these reasons? Revenge? Spite?

If tariffs were imposed, it would be to serve as a warning to other EU nations thinking about having a similar referendum.

[Camoradi]

RobinOakapple said:

The doom merchants are fond of warning us about the negative consequences of our actions as if these things (such as import tariffs) are going to happen automatically. They aren't. If they do happen it will be result of decisions and those decisions will be based on reasons.

So what are these reasons? Revenge? Spite?

It had also occurred to me that the "free trade area" that we need to be part of is in fact no more than protectionist zone, with its limits defined only by tariffs on goods coming from outside. The politicians talk as if tariffs are the default position, and they have gifted us freedom from them with their free trade area.

[glazbagun]

RobinOakapple said:

The doom merchants are fond of warning us about the negative consequences of our actions as if these things (such as import tariffs) are going to happen automatically. They aren't. If they do happen it will be result of decisions and those decisions will be based on reasons.

So what are these reasons? Revenge? Spite?

Protecting the interests of your trading bloc? What's the point of having one if anyone can sell you anything. Going to all the effort of unifying practices and laws so you can trade equally, then buy dumped steel or products from another country?

Does Brexit mean we will be out of discussions on the design of common standards, too? Or is that seperate to the EU?

[Yertis]

RobinOakapple said:

The doom merchants are fond of warning us about the negative consequences of our actions as if these things (such as import tariffs) are going to happen automatically. They aren't. If they do happen it will be result of decisions and those decisions will be based on reasons.

So what are these reasons? Revenge? Spite?

Those kind of motives – whether real or imagined - are exactly what many people were reacting to when they voted 'out'.

[barryrs]

vonuber said:

don4l said:

The first to go would be the European Water Framework directive. It has caused flooding and great devastation to wildlife.

No it hasn't, stop spouting nonsense.

You sure about that.

With the adoption of the European Water Framework Directive in 2000 authorities were no longer charged with a duty to prevent flooding. Instead, the emphasis shifted, to a primary obligation to achieve ‘good ecological status’ for our national rivers. This is defined as being as close as possible to ‘undisturbed natural conditions’. ‘Heavily modified waters’, which include rivers dredged or embanked to prevent flooding, cannot, by definition, ever satisfy the terms of the directive.

[lostkiwi]

Mark Benson said:

RobinOakapple said:

The doom merchants are fond of warning us about the negative consequences of our actions as if these things (such as import tariffs) are going to happen automatically. They aren't. If they do happen it will be result of decisions and those decisions will be based on reasons.

So what are these reasons? Revenge? Spite?

If tariffs were imposed, it would be to serve as a warning to other EU nations thinking about having a similar referendum.

The possibilities of tariffs are very real.
Once Article 50 is invoked we have 2 years to negotiate an agreement with the EU.
If no agreement is found then by default the country leaving is ejected with no agreements so subject to WTO rules.
As we have no standing in the WTO in our own right (we have standing as a subsidiary nation to the EU) according to Richard Azevedo (Head of the WTO) we would need to negotiate our place there as well.

The EU will be in a very strong position for negotiation as Article 50 gives the advantage to the EU in as much as we need them more than they need us (value of our exports to them as a % of total exports vs value of their exports to us as a % of total exports).

[lostkiwi]

glazbagun said:

Does Brexit mean we will be out of discussions on the design of common standards, too? Or is that seperate to the EU?

Yes for some things. Other things are decided at a UN level. For example the old EC regulations (driven by the EU) for motor vehicles have been replaced by UNECE regulations (driven by the UN).

[vonuber]

barryrs said:

You sure about that.

With the adoption of the European Water Framework Directive in 2000 authorities were no longer charged with a duty to prevent flooding. Instead, the emphasis shifted, to a primary obligation to achieve ‘good ecological status’ for our national rivers. This is defined as being as close as possible to ‘undisturbed natural conditions’. ‘Heavily modified waters’, which include rivers dredged or embanked to prevent flooding, cannot, by definition, ever satisfy the terms of the directive.

Yes, very sure.

Anyway, looking forward to the expansion of our fishing fleet!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/2...