The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[Sway]

FN2TypeR said:

Sway said:

Here you go again...

'just a discussion point', yet once again you resort to 'bks talked about the fall in the pound'.

I've posted a few times about the experiences post Brexit result for my client. There have been many pointing out similar. Including the article yesterday about a huge surge in tourism.

You ignore every one, or try to counter it with negativity. Every single time.

You then revert to 'Brexiteers', as though that's even remotely representative of those posting on here, or in the wider world.

There's very little blind optimism, but rather a lot of blind negativity. It's tiresome to the extreme.

How dare he post articles or information that align with his point of view.

///ajd you disgust me.

Plenty, myself included, respond or partially agree with some of the challenges ahead. I'm on record as supporting EEA/EFTA short term, before and after the result.

That was swiftly taken off the table due to everyone's lack of understanding of the control over FoMoL permitted by the EU under that agreement, which is a shame.

However, all the signs, from both sides, show that a FTA including FS is really very likely... Which will do me fine, and remove virtually all these 'concerns'.

[s2art]

FN2TypeR said:

How dare he post articles or information that align with his point of view.

///ajd you disgust me.

The problem is that he posts complete bks. Just go back a few posts where he claims the UK grew at 9.5% for a decade. (I doubt even an emerging economy could achieve that, let alone a mature one)

[Dr Jekyll]

///ajd said:

Some important points made here

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...

- 50% of new taxi comes into UK
- brexit pound fall already due to hit new taxi profits
- hard brexit could put >£2k on cost of UK car

Overall message is a deal is needed to protect the sector.

Desperate stuff, even by Guardian standards. It simply assumes that leaving the EU without a deal would mean tariffs on all imported components (why?), and completely ignores the fact that it's only by leaving the EU and the customs union can we lift or reduce tariffs on components from outside the EU.

Edited by Dr Jekyll on Saturday 25th March 16:31

[alfie2244]

One for Slasher:

"Britain is experiencing a post-Brexit vote tourism boom according to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)."

http://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/783644/mo...

[gizlaroc]

don'tbesilly said:

It is an interesting read, however ///ajd will have scanned through realised it didn't suit the agenda/bias & moved on after finding more doom & gloom from the usual rags, the Guardian/Independent, full of 'might's'/'maybe's'/ 'if's' and 'but's' which when examined and questioned paint a picture of anything but which ///ajd implies and would appear to desire.

Haha, true.

So, ///ajd, have you read this....

http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/mythandpar...


??????

[///ajd]

gizlaroc said:

Haha, true.

So, ///ajd, have you read this....

http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/mythandpar...


??????

yes, skimmed it. biased.

admits in summary bullet 4 it is not known how the trade conditions compare.

it also is selective over the deals that are in place. it ignores any EU-China measures - it must do by limiting numbers to 7Tn for EU. It implies this is holding back the EU. it almost assumes any deal is better than WTO which is not necessarily the case at all.

it also ignores the protection afforded from not allowing flooding from e.g. china:

it is a narrow view, aimed to suck in the easily persuaded. worked on some who lapped it up.

[Dr Jekyll]

///ajd said:

yes, skimmed it. biased.

admits in summary bullet 4 it is not known how the trade conditions compare.

it also is selective over the deals that are in place. it ignores any EU-China measures - it must do by limiting numbers to 7Tn for EU. It implies this is holding back the EU. it almost assumes any deal is better than WTO which is not necessarily the case at all.

it also ignores the protection afforded from not allowing flooding from e.g. china:

it is a narrow view, aimed to suck in the easily persuaded. worked on some who lapped it up.

What EU-China measures?

[anonymous-user]

Mrr T said:

jsf said:

Mrr T said:

Missed it but:
China – Only interesting in exporting
India – Only interesting in exporting
Japan – Only interesting in exporting
Pakistan – Very poor
Taiwan - Only interesting in exporting
USA - Only interesting in exporting

So reply is just a list with no explanation why they offer such fabulous opportunities.

A Taiwanese company flew me to Taiwan and put me up in a top hotel for a week so I could offer them advice on how to look after their imported British products, they tried to recruit me to relocate to Taipei and run the operation.

But yeh, Taiwan are not interested in importing British goods.

Look back and set my comments in context. I never suggested FTA would not increase trade.

The poster I queried said Brexit would bring "fabulous" opportunities. One reason I support the EEA/EFTA Brexit option is that we can then negotiate paperless access to the CU and leave the CU and then negotiate our own trade agreements.

I believe this will benefit the UK but not "fabulous".

What you said was the countries mentioned were only interested in exporting.

Clearly, even without a FTA in place, that's not the case and hasn't been for a while.

The absolute norm with countries that are expanding economically and raising the social conditions of their populations is for them to move away from export only trade policy to that of importing more foreign goods, especially high value added goods, which is something the UK excels at.

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

gizlaroc said:

Haha, true.

So, ///ajd, have you read this....

http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/mythandpar...


??????

yes, skimmed it. biased.

don'tbesilly said:

It is an interesting read, however ///ajd will have scanned through realised it didn't suit the agenda/bias & moved

So predictable you can call his thoughts/answers before he can even answer himself

[Dr Jekyll]

jsf said:

What you said was the countries mentioned were only interested in exporting.

Clearly, even without a FTA in place, that's not the case and hasn't been for a while.

Which would be impossible anyway.

[king arthur]

///ajd said:

yes, skimmed it. biased.

Not like the Guardian then...

[Troubleatmill]

king arthur said:

///ajd said:

yes, skimmed it. biased.

Not like the Guardian then...

Jeez - a bit of wee came out then,,,
You know //ajd is on the forum because the only news source ever quoted is the Grauniad.


I look forward to the next round of Grauniad gumff...

[///ajd]

don'tbesilly said:

///ajd said:

gizlaroc said:

Haha, true.

So, ///ajd, have you read this....

http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/mythandpar...


??????

yes, skimmed it. biased.

don'tbesilly said:

It is an interesting read, however ///ajd will have scanned through realised it didn't suit the agenda/bias & moved

So predictable you can call his thoughts/answers before he can even answer himself

why don't you consider the points I raised?

again and again the is no debate

"read this - its great"

is it great? why? because it presses your buttons to hate the EU, irrespective if the points?

the guardian has many faults, but it is not the only source of the data which is all too easily verified, and it is at least related to facts, unlike some of the bilge digested by the daily mail & express. which is written for idiots, lets face it.

[anonymous-user]

Slasher, you are like a poor tramp, out of his face on meths on a park bench, gibbering on to himself. It's not healthy man.

[///ajd]

This is what some pay money to read.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/n...

Many voted brexit as the express told them why they should.

[B'stard Child]

///ajd said:

why don't you consider the points I raised?

again and again the is no debate

"read this - its great"

is it great? why? because it presses your buttons to hate the EU, irrespective if the points?

the guardian has many faults, but it is not the only source of the data which is all too easily verified, and it is at least related to facts, unlike some of the bilge digested by the daily mail & express. which is written for idiots, lets face it.

I asked you if you had any reason to consider voting leave - you stated none

I have frequently stated I had 273 reasons to leave and 11 to remain

That is a level of balance I don't see in your posting or approach and having been working in a finance role until recently your maths is worse than mine and that takes some doing

[Deptford Draylons]

///ajd said:

why don't you consider the points I raised?

again and again the is no debate

"read this - its great"

is it great? why? because it presses your buttons to hate the EU, irrespective if the points?

the guardian has many faults, but it is not the only source of the data which is all too easily verified, and it is at least related to facts, unlike some of the bilge digested by the daily mail & express. which is written for idiots, lets face it.

Haha, says the master of searching the Indy and posting links to lame bad news Brexit articles with a sarcastic single comment as proof of something. You've done that non stop since your tantrum day on June 24th of last year. You've got some brass neck on this forum, I'll give you that much.

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

don'tbesilly said:

///ajd said:

gizlaroc said:

Haha, true.

So, ///ajd, have you read this....

http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/mythandpar...


??????

yes, skimmed it. biased.

don'tbesilly said:

It is an interesting read, however ///ajd will have scanned through realised it didn't suit the agenda/bias & moved

So predictable you can call his thoughts/answers before he can even answer himself

why don't you consider the points I raised?

again and again the is no debate

"read this - its great"

is it great? why? because it presses your buttons to hate the EU, irrespective if the points?

the guardian has many faults, but it is not the only source of the data which is all too easily verified, and it is at least related to facts, unlike some of the bilge digested by the daily mail & express. which is written for idiots, lets face it.

I've never stated I hate the EU, not wanting to be a being a member of the EU doesn't equate to hate, wherever have you got that idea?

The article referenced isn't about hating the EU,is that really what you think?
If you do, you clearly haven't read any of it.

Did I say the article was great, no.

Have I mentioned the Express/Daily Mail, no.

Anything else you wish to twist?

[///ajd]

Deptford Draylons said:

Haha, says the master of searching the Indy and posting links to lame bad news Brexit articles with a sarcastic single comment as proof of something. You've done that non stop since your tantrum day on June 24th of last year. You've got some brass neck on this forum, I'll give you that much.

so no substance then, as usual.

can you think for yourself, or just parrot what the express tells you?

[///ajd]

don'tbesilly said:

I've never stated I hate the EU, not wanting to be a being a member of the EU doesn't equate to hate, wherever have you got that idea?

The article referenced isn't about hating the EU,is that really what you think?
If you do, you clearly haven't read any of it.

Did I say the article was great, no.

Have I mentioned the Express/Daily Mail, no.

Anything else you wish to twist?

Its a total Farage biscuit article. If you can't see through it, fair enough.