Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 3)
Discussion
SpeckledJim said:
You've come out with some zingers over the last few days, but "the EU is really good at trade deals" is, in my very 'umble, by far the best.
Can you find any literature anywhere, except maybe the EU's own website, that reckons the EU is really good at doing trade deals? What do the Americans reckon? The Canadians?
What's easier:
A: for you and Mrs Turnick to decide where you're going on holiday?
or
B: for you, Mrs Turnick, and everyone from your class at school to make the same decision? Everyone has to agree, or no holiday and grumpy Turnicks.
We are definitely not great at trade deals. Majority of our agreements are roll over agreements, so negotiated by the EU and simply continue with no effect on the economy and add nothing to UK trade.Can you find any literature anywhere, except maybe the EU's own website, that reckons the EU is really good at doing trade deals? What do the Americans reckon? The Canadians?
What's easier:
A: for you and Mrs Turnick to decide where you're going on holiday?
or
B: for you, Mrs Turnick, and everyone from your class at school to make the same decision? Everyone has to agree, or no holiday and grumpy Turnicks.
The new agreements we have negotiated will have just £3-7 benefit per person over the next 15 years. Not even 0.02% of GDP. Whereas over the same period, leaving the EU has had a 4% hit on GDP. These are the governments own figures from OBR.
Unless we improve our trade with the EU (which threatening them with Article 16 isn't going to help), then there is no benefit in these trade agreements to the vast majority of the population compared to what we previously had, but a loss.
Sway said:
All of them. The very principle of applying maximum product standards I find borderline offensive.
If that's what you think the Aussie farmers will do, then why were you moaning about the risks to British farmers?
I've asked for a specific law or regulation from the EU, not just all of them. Which maximum standard of the single market are you most looking forward to us exceeding?If that's what you think the Aussie farmers will do, then why were you moaning about the risks to British farmers?
aturnick54 said:
Sway said:
All of them. The very principle of applying maximum product standards I find borderline offensive.
If that's what you think the Aussie farmers will do, then why were you moaning about the risks to British farmers?
I've asked for a specific law or regulation from the EU, not just all of them. Which maximum standard of the single market are you most looking forward to us exceeding?If that's what you think the Aussie farmers will do, then why were you moaning about the risks to British farmers?
stongle said:
hyphen said:
No surprise. Been saying for years. It just proves you can't Google your business knowledge or get it from a fortune cookie. This isnt even unintended consequence. 
I'm curious why the latest loon thinks the m20 queues today ate due to Brexit, the rozzers were clear it's an accident. Nothing like a qood lie to justify remain. Even the Guradian is running a story that this weeks queues was volume NOT Brexit related. The Guardian no less. Perhaps alt is the guy who thinks 20mins of doc checks adds 20hours to the Paris drive (that's some funky taco maths to get to that or very extreme edge cases)...
It really is about time some posters grow up and work out exactly how the world works.
Stongle asking others to grow up, because Stongle knows how the world works.
EY, 20 dec. 2021:
Lockdowns Delay London’s Brexit Banker Departures, EY Says
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-20...
aturnick54 said:
Sway said:
All of them. The very principle of applying maximum product standards I find borderline offensive.
If that's what you think the Aussie farmers will do, then why were you moaning about the risks to British farmers?
I've asked for a specific law or regulation from the EU, not just all of them. Which maximum standard of the single market are you most looking forward to us exceeding?If that's what you think the Aussie farmers will do, then why were you moaning about the risks to British farmers?
Especially as I've already answered it.
aturnick54 said:
We are definitely not great at trade deals. Majority of our agreements are roll over agreements, so negotiated by the EU and simply continue with no effect on the economy and add nothing to UK trade.
The new agreements we have negotiated will have just £3-7 benefit per person over the next 15 years. Not even 0.02% of GDP. Whereas over the same period, leaving the EU has had a 4% hit on GDP. These are the governments own figures from OBR.
Unless we improve our trade with the EU (which threatening them with Article 16 isn't going to help), then there is no benefit in these trade agreements to the vast majority of the population compared to what we previously had, but a loss.
I suppose one of the benefits of returning under a new username is that one can go back over the same ground that one got so wrong the first time around and adjust ones position to reflect that failure. One such example would be the frequently made assertion that the UK had no possibility of matching the EU trade deals because we are too small to have the kind of leverage that would get us those deals. The new agreements we have negotiated will have just £3-7 benefit per person over the next 15 years. Not even 0.02% of GDP. Whereas over the same period, leaving the EU has had a 4% hit on GDP. These are the governments own figures from OBR.
Unless we improve our trade with the EU (which threatening them with Article 16 isn't going to help), then there is no benefit in these trade agreements to the vast majority of the population compared to what we previously had, but a loss.
Now, the assertion is that it's simply not good enough to have matched those deals (by rollover)............... If previously, the UK could not expect EU levels of trade deals, how is it that rolling over most and improving some is not good enough? Bizarre.
But then you've only been here a month so of course you wouldn't be aware of any of those previous arguments.....
Sway said:
If you're asking which 'law', when the context entirely relates to product standards, then frankly you're showing you're not capable of understanding the answer.
Especially as I've already answered it.
Why can't you name me one of the maximum EU regulations that you want us to improve our standards on? I'm asking the question to gain an understanding of which ones in particular you think we should improve on, 'all of them' isn't very specific and doesn't answer the question.Especially as I've already answered it.
andymadmak said:
I suppose one of the benefits of returning under a new username is that one can go back over the same ground that one got so wrong the first time around and adjust ones position to reflect that failure. One such example would be the frequently made assertion that the UK had no possibility of matching the EU trade deals because we are too small to have the kind of leverage that would get us those deals.
Now, the assertion is that it's simply not good enough to have matched those deals (by rollover)............... If previously, the UK could not expect EU levels of trade deals, how is it that rolling over most and improving some is not good enough? Bizarre.
But then you've only been here a month so of course you wouldn't be aware of any of those previous arguments.....
Not sure what you mean by returning, I'm new to PH having previously been a lurker and have never held an account on here previously.Now, the assertion is that it's simply not good enough to have matched those deals (by rollover)............... If previously, the UK could not expect EU levels of trade deals, how is it that rolling over most and improving some is not good enough? Bizarre.
But then you've only been here a month so of course you wouldn't be aware of any of those previous arguments.....
Because the new agreed deals are not improvements of 4% GDP to provide any additional benefit from what we had previously as a member of the single market. If the new deals do not offset the loss caused by leaving in the first place then it is pretty pointless and leaves us worse off. This is to be expected when Australia makes up such a small amount of our trade compared to our trade with the EU.
SpeckledJim said:
aturnick54 said:
SpeckledJim said:
Come on Eeyore, aren't you just the tiniest bit encouraged by the prospect of better access to markets of 7bn people 'for free', at the cost of worse access to 400m people, that we used to have to pay for?
Not just the weeniest flicker of optimism about that?
Better access to the Australian market, I'm sure their farmers are well chuffed. Ours on the other hand...Not just the weeniest flicker of optimism about that?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-bu...
Do you honestly think that the UK has the upper hand when negotiating trade agreements with other nations when compared to the EU? The EU is a much bigger market, they have much more leverage during negotiations than we do.
So by your own assertion, as a result of our size we'd do rather well, wouldn't we?
Or is bigger always better except sometimes?
Hardly relevant.
I've presented the numbers before, if you add UK's export markets, the 450m people of the EU (53%, by far the biggest %), the US (+/- 10%) and China (+/- 5%) together you have the vast majority of UK's export. The top 10 alone contains the US and 8 EU nations + Switzerland (not coincidentally the nearest markets and some of the most prosperous and some of the biggest as well).
It's those markets that the UK should want a trade deal with, for all the obvious reasons. Size and proximity.
Trade deals with Nigeria, New Zealand, Chile and Vanuatu are just not very interesting.
DeltonaS said:
SpeckledJim said:
aturnick54 said:
SpeckledJim said:
Come on Eeyore, aren't you just the tiniest bit encouraged by the prospect of better access to markets of 7bn people 'for free', at the cost of worse access to 400m people, that we used to have to pay for?
Not just the weeniest flicker of optimism about that?
Better access to the Australian market, I'm sure their farmers are well chuffed. Ours on the other hand...Not just the weeniest flicker of optimism about that?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-bu...
Do you honestly think that the UK has the upper hand when negotiating trade agreements with other nations when compared to the EU? The EU is a much bigger market, they have much more leverage during negotiations than we do.
So by your own assertion, as a result of our size we'd do rather well, wouldn't we?
Or is bigger always better except sometimes?
Hardly relevant.
I've presented the numbers before, if you add UK's export markets, the 450m people of the EU (53%, by far the biggest %), the US (+/- 10%) and China (+/- 5%) together you have the vast majority of UK's export. The top 10 alone contains the US and 8 EU nations + Switzerland (not coincidentally the nearest markets and some of the most prosperous and some of the biggest as well).
It's those markets that the UK should want a trade deal with, for all the obvious reasons. Size and proximity.
Trade deals with Nigeria, New Zealand, Chile and Vanuatu are just not very interesting.
There's more chance of agreeing one with the last one, now we don't have negotiations kiboshed by the French getting concerned about English language DVDs...
aturnick54 said:
Sway said:
If you're asking which 'law', when the context entirely relates to product standards, then frankly you're showing you're not capable of understanding the answer.
Especially as I've already answered it.
Why can't you name me one of the maximum EU regulations that you want us to improve our standards on? I'm asking the question to gain an understanding of which ones in particular you think we should improve on, 'all of them' isn't very specific and doesn't answer the question.Especially as I've already answered it.
However, I've fed you for a week, I'll carry on as it's amusing - just one. Maximum power consumption for vacuum cleaners. Far from reducing energy consumption, all that happens is you spend longer hoovering (and certain British manufacturers of excellent carpet cleaning services were disadvantaged compared to those who'd lobbied for the change).
Sway said:
All of them does indeed answer the question. Find any one, and there's pretty much a guarantee I'll disagree with it on principle.
However, I've fed you for a week, I'll carry on as it's amusing - just one. Maximum power consumption for vacuum cleaners. Far from reducing energy consumption, all that happens is you spend longer hoovering (and certain British manufacturers of excellent carpet cleaning services were disadvantaged compared to those who'd lobbied for the change).
It's not for me to find evidence for a point that you've made.However, I've fed you for a week, I'll carry on as it's amusing - just one. Maximum power consumption for vacuum cleaners. Far from reducing energy consumption, all that happens is you spend longer hoovering (and certain British manufacturers of excellent carpet cleaning services were disadvantaged compared to those who'd lobbied for the change).
As for vacuum cleaners, having more power doesn't directly translate to more suction power and better cleaning.
They also set a limit of 80dB on noise. Fail to see why this is a bad regulation, and why we would want to increase the noise limit. That doesn't improve the regulation and make consumers lives better.
aturnick54 said:
Sway said:
All of them does indeed answer the question. Find any one, and there's pretty much a guarantee I'll disagree with it on principle.
However, I've fed you for a week, I'll carry on as it's amusing - just one. Maximum power consumption for vacuum cleaners. Far from reducing energy consumption, all that happens is you spend longer hoovering (and certain British manufacturers of excellent carpet cleaning services were disadvantaged compared to those who'd lobbied for the change).
It's not for me to find evidence for a point that you've made.However, I've fed you for a week, I'll carry on as it's amusing - just one. Maximum power consumption for vacuum cleaners. Far from reducing energy consumption, all that happens is you spend longer hoovering (and certain British manufacturers of excellent carpet cleaning services were disadvantaged compared to those who'd lobbied for the change).
As for vacuum cleaners, having more power doesn't directly translate to more suction power and better cleaning.
They also set a limit of 80dB on noise. Fail to see why this is a bad regulation, and why we would want to increase the noise limit. That doesn't improve the regulation and make consumers lives better.
I also never said that more power directly translates to increased suction. However, it does place an upper limit on the cleaning capabilities of domestic machines - that doesn't cut it on deep pile with large dogs.
Noise limits are what they are, but they don't in and of themselves limit the capabilities of the machines effected in any appreciable way. They're also linked to HSE legislation, which I'm broadly fine with.
DeltonaS said:
We're 5th/6th in the world !!
Hardly relevant.
I've presented the numbers before, if you add UK's export markets, the 450m people of the EU (53%, by far the biggest %), the US (+/- 10%) and China (+/- 5%) together you have the vast majority of UK's export. The top 10 alone contains the US and 8 EU nations + Switzerland (not coincidentally the nearest markets and some of the most prosperous and some of the biggest as well).
It's those markets that the UK should want a trade deal with, for all the obvious reasons. Size and proximity.
Trade deals with Nigeria, New Zealand, Chile and Vanuatu are just not very interesting.
Well 450m is a red herring because for most of the 27 EU countries the U.K. sells virtually nothing to them Hardly relevant.
I've presented the numbers before, if you add UK's export markets, the 450m people of the EU (53%, by far the biggest %), the US (+/- 10%) and China (+/- 5%) together you have the vast majority of UK's export. The top 10 alone contains the US and 8 EU nations + Switzerland (not coincidentally the nearest markets and some of the most prosperous and some of the biggest as well).
It's those markets that the UK should want a trade deal with, for all the obvious reasons. Size and proximity.
Trade deals with Nigeria, New Zealand, Chile and Vanuatu are just not very interesting.
Here’s the top 10 in order 1/22
United States: US$55.6 billion (14.1% of total UK exports)
Germany: $41.6 billion (10.5%)
Ireland: $27.8 billion (7%)
Netherlands: $25.3 billion (6.4%)
France: $23.9 billion (6%)
China: $18.5 billion (4.7%)
Switzerland: $18.4 billion (4.6%)
Belgium: $13.7 billion (3.5%)
Spain: $11.1 billion (2.8%)
Italy: $11 billion (2.8%)
And trade with most of the EU is falling whilst RoW is increasing
The next 10 are interesting with only two EU members in the list
Hong Kong: $10.1 billion (2.5%)
Canada: $7.6 billion (1.9%)
Japan: $7.1 billion (1.8%)
Turkey: $6.3 billion (1.6%)
United Arab Emirates: $6.1 billion (1.5%)
Poland: $5.9 billion (1.5%)
Singapore: $5.63 billion (1.4%)
Sweden: $5.6 billion (1.4%)
Australia: $5.18 billion (1.3%)
Norway: $5.17 billion (1.3%)
EU nations are Less than half of our 20 biggest trading partners
Add the next five and these 25 countries are 85% of U.K. exports
South Korea: $4.9 billion (1.2%)
India: $3.9 billion (1%)
Saudi Arabia: $3.5 billion (0.9%)
Qatar: $3.2 billion (0.8%)
Denmark: $3 billion (0.8%)
Five among the top 25 importers increased the value of their deliveries from the UK from 2019 These gainers were Switzerland (up 17.5%), Canada (up 12.3%), Norway (up 10.7%), South Korea (up 2.3%) and Ireland (up 0.1%).
Note only one EU member and the EU countries in the top 25 only make up 40% of the number
Edited by Earthdweller on Wednesday 26th January 20:02
aturnick54 said:
Sway said:
All of them does indeed answer the question. Find any one, and there's pretty much a guarantee I'll disagree with it on principle.
However, I've fed you for a week, I'll carry on as it's amusing - just one. Maximum power consumption for vacuum cleaners. Far from reducing energy consumption, all that happens is you spend longer hoovering (and certain British manufacturers of excellent carpet cleaning services were disadvantaged compared to those who'd lobbied for the change).
It's not for me to find evidence for a point that you've made.However, I've fed you for a week, I'll carry on as it's amusing - just one. Maximum power consumption for vacuum cleaners. Far from reducing energy consumption, all that happens is you spend longer hoovering (and certain British manufacturers of excellent carpet cleaning services were disadvantaged compared to those who'd lobbied for the change).
As for vacuum cleaners, having more power doesn't directly translate to more suction power and better cleaning.
They also set a limit of 80dB on noise. Fail to see why this is a bad regulation, and why we would want to increase the noise limit. That doesn't improve the regulation and make consumers lives better.
The EU regs are now around 900W - which when brought in didn't appear to affect any of the top rated products according to Which which looked at the impact at the time.
Dyson appear to only sell cordless products in the UK now, and Dyson themselves are making cordless cleaners with more suction than ever (240Air watts, much better than 100Air watts or so a few years ago). And all with a motor of around 525W - nearly half the regulated amount.
In short the "benefit" is related to a removing an EU power regulation designed to save energy and make products more efficient - and it is miles from affecting any of the products from the manufacturer quoted.
Are there any examples that make a bit more sense?
It is also perverse to refer to standards clearly intended to drive efficiency (which appears to have successfully driven improved products, including those by Dyson) in such a way.
Sway said:
Maximum power consumption for vacuum cleaners. Far from reducing energy consumption, all that happens is you spend longer hoovering (and certain British manufacturers of excellent carpet cleaning services were disadvantaged compared to those who'd lobbied for the change).
Lets beat a very very dead horse some more. UK market vs EU market based on their sizes. I can see how all vacuum cleaner manufacturers are jumping from joy to have opportunity to build UK specific special hyper suction models instead of single EU28 model. British exceptionalism will simply compel them to provide greatest stuff at extra cheap prices. Same goes with all white goods producers. Special models for special people all around.928 GTS said:
Lets beat a very very dead horse some more. UK market vs EU market based on their sizes. I can see how all vacuum cleaner manufacturers are jumping from joy to have opportunity to build UK specific special hyper suction models instead of single EU28 model. British exceptionalism will simply compel them to provide greatest stuff at extra cheap prices. Same goes with all white goods producers. Special models for special people all around.
Why would you My Mrs is in a global medical tech/devices and all their products are sold globally and made to comply with the highest global standard which is usually the US/U.K. regs even they are EU based
They don’t make different quality versions for different markets they make one standard that can be sold anywhere
Earthdweller said:
Why would you
My Mrs is in a global medical tech/devices and all their products are sold globally and made to comply with the highest global standard which is usually the US/U.K. regs even they are EU based
They don’t make different quality versions for different markets they make one standard that can be sold anywhere
If the UK vacuum cleaner maximum power regulation is higher than that of the EU, then they can't sell the product in the EU. That's a big market to lose. So instead they'll produce to EU standard and then it can be sold in both markets.My Mrs is in a global medical tech/devices and all their products are sold globally and made to comply with the highest global standard which is usually the US/U.K. regs even they are EU based
They don’t make different quality versions for different markets they make one standard that can be sold anywhere
Knew I'd trigger a few. Was always going to bring out a few who should keep their keyboards quiet instead of removing all doubt.
No, not Dyson. Numatic, but don't let that get in the way of assumptions that enable a diatribe.
As for 'British exceptionalism' - they don't need to make a specific UK market product, there's plenty of other markets who don't place arbitrary maximum performance restrictions.
Even if it was a UK market specific product, they already do... Or do the plugs on the kit you buy work across the continent too? Swapping a motor for a higher power rating is an utter doddle.
No, not Dyson. Numatic, but don't let that get in the way of assumptions that enable a diatribe.
As for 'British exceptionalism' - they don't need to make a specific UK market product, there's plenty of other markets who don't place arbitrary maximum performance restrictions.
Even if it was a UK market specific product, they already do... Or do the plugs on the kit you buy work across the continent too? Swapping a motor for a higher power rating is an utter doddle.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff