Brexit related recession?
Discussion
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
You didn't answer simple question. That's ok.
I don't know how to say this differently. No, not all people who did vote for leave are 'insular bigots'. I don't think anyone was claiming that. If they did, they would be wrong. Immigration was number one concern for majority of leave voters.
'Brexit as a whole is a globalisation vote'.
Certainly Brexit gives much more opportunity to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world - surely you can't deny that?I don't know how to say this differently. No, not all people who did vote for leave are 'insular bigots'. I don't think anyone was claiming that. If they did, they would be wrong. Immigration was number one concern for majority of leave voters.
'Brexit as a whole is a globalisation vote'.
Talking about growth things kooky pretty damn rosy in the EU
Nestle moving 300 jobs to Poland. Apparently not about Brexit though...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39708689
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39708689
Tryke3 said:
We are about 30 years too late. Name me one country that is eager to buy our overpriced goods . Most of the world can't afford the luxury goods that we make, the people who can afford it are just right over the channel
Talking about growth things kooky pretty damn rosy in the EU
You are living in the past. China, for one, buys a lot of our up market goods. They are very keen on luxury brands.Talking about growth things kooky pretty damn rosy in the EU
sidicks said:
Certainly Brexit gives much more opportunity to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world - surely you can't deny that?
What rest of the world? Even Trumpster who was hailed as brexit saviour is now saying uhm, well yea, priority for a bigger market. India? Uhm, y'know we are not happy with visas, sort that out and then we might talk of access to our services market. Might. Sure, brexit will give more opportunity to negotiate trade deals with rest of the world. Given the circumstances, are those trade deal going to be substantialy better (more beneficial to the UK) than what we have now? I doubt it.
jjlynn27 said:
What rest of the world? Even Trumpster who was hailed as brexit saviour is now saying uhm, well yea, priority for a bigger market. India? Uhm, y'know we are not happy with visas, sort that out and then we might talk of access to our services market. Might.
Sure, brexit will give more opportunity to negotiate trade deals with rest of the world.
Hence why Brexit is about Globalisation, not EU protectionism. Sure, brexit will give more opportunity to negotiate trade deals with rest of the world.
jjlynn27 said:
Given the circumstances, are those trade deal going to be substantialy better (more beneficial to the UK) than what we have now? I doubt it.
Given that they won't be constrained by the diverse / competing needs of 27 other countries then it certainly seems possible.jjlynn27 said:
sidicks said:
Certainly Brexit gives much more opportunity to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world - surely you can't deny that?
What rest of the world? Even Trumpster who was hailed as brexit saviour is now saying uhm, well yea, priority for a bigger market. India? Uhm, y'know we are not happy with visas, sort that out and then we might talk of access to our services market. Might. Sure, brexit will give more opportunity to negotiate trade deals with rest of the world. Given the circumstances, are those trade deal going to be substantialy better (more beneficial to the UK) than what we have now? I doubt it.
The Chinese interest and investment in Africa should be startling to the EU. They're pumping billions into the continent because they see potential where the EU only sees short term competition for their precious farmers.
With regards to your "simple" (badly written) question:
"Is competition for jobs also in people interests too, or is this benefit of competition limited to import of lamb?"
Competition for jobs is good, for obvious reasons. But, as with commerce, flooding a market is not good (eg. the Chinese steel dump).
So yes, I would be looking towards Africa, Pakistan, India, Japan. You know, those things that'll take time to develop but benefit everyone rather than get rich quick schemes that benefit a few.
Tryke3 said:
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
You didn't answer simple question. That's ok.
I don't know how to say this differently. No, not all people who did vote for leave are 'insular bigots'. I don't think anyone was claiming that. If they did, they would be wrong. Immigration was number one concern for majority of leave voters.
'Brexit as a whole is a globalisation vote'.
Certainly Brexit gives much more opportunity to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world - surely you can't deny that?I don't know how to say this differently. No, not all people who did vote for leave are 'insular bigots'. I don't think anyone was claiming that. If they did, they would be wrong. Immigration was number one concern for majority of leave voters.
'Brexit as a whole is a globalisation vote'.
Talking about growth things kooky pretty damn rosy in the EU
Do you seriously think we're going to compete with China in producing anything other than high end, technologically advanced, luxury? I'm pretty sure they've got a more capable workforce for producing billions of widgets.
John145 said:
My highest priority would be Africa. A massive continent ripe for development and decades of charity have done nothing. Only education and work brings people out of poverty.
The Chinese interest and investment in Africa should be startling to the EU. They're pumping billions into the continent because they see potential where the EU only sees short term competition for their precious farmers.
With regards to your "simple" (badly written) question:
"Is competition for jobs also in people interests too, or is this benefit of competition limited to import of lamb?"
Competition for jobs is good, for obvious reasons. But, as with commerce, flooding a market is not good (eg. the Chinese steel dump).
So yes, I would be looking towards Africa, Pakistan, India, Japan. You know, those things that'll take time to develop but benefit everyone rather than get rich quick schemes that benefit a few.
Your highest priority would be Africa? I'm sure that export of Jaguars to Sao Tome and Principe will skyrocket once the shackles of damned EU come off. Not to mention export of financial services to Nigeria.The Chinese interest and investment in Africa should be startling to the EU. They're pumping billions into the continent because they see potential where the EU only sees short term competition for their precious farmers.
With regards to your "simple" (badly written) question:
"Is competition for jobs also in people interests too, or is this benefit of competition limited to import of lamb?"
Competition for jobs is good, for obvious reasons. But, as with commerce, flooding a market is not good (eg. the Chinese steel dump).
So yes, I would be looking towards Africa, Pakistan, India, Japan. You know, those things that'll take time to develop but benefit everyone rather than get rich quick schemes that benefit a few.
We already trade with India. Read up on how the latest 'charm offensive' by May and Hammond went.
p1stonhead said:
Nestle moving 300 jobs to Poland. Apparently not about Brexit though...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39708689
Way to pick a company with the "moral high-ground" - pretty sure every campus in the UK will say good riddance.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39708689
PH XKR said:
Oh look, Nestle have move 300 jobs to Poland, 300 highly skilled workers are now emigrating.
BTW, the EU funded many job relocations to developing countries at the cost of developed countries.
That's as correct as your idiocy about not being able to buy lamb in UK because of EU. BTW, the EU funded many job relocations to developing countries at the cost of developed countries.
Jinx said:
p1stonhead said:
Nestle moving 300 jobs to Poland. Apparently not about Brexit though...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39708689
Way to pick a company with the "moral high-ground" - pretty sure every campus in the UK will say good riddance.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39708689
It's the 'wrong' company moving job s though so it doesn't count/good riddance
Jinx said:
p1stonhead said:
Nestle moving 300 jobs to Poland. Apparently not about Brexit though...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39708689
Way to pick a company with the "moral high-ground" - pretty sure every campus in the UK will say good riddance.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39708689
Student Unions
SNP
JJlynn28
jjlynn27 said:
Your highest priority would be Africa? I'm sure that export of Jaguars to Sao Tome and Principe will skyrocket once the shackles of damned EU come off. Not to mention export of financial services to Nigeria.
We already trade with India. Read up on how the latest 'charm offensive' by May and Hammond went.
I would start with food importing. Give people a real alternative. What about my other points? Yawn. Can't see past your bigotry.We already trade with India. Read up on how the latest 'charm offensive' by May and Hammond went.
sidicks said:
I'm sure you think so, but if you think that a £150bn structural deficit is the sign of a well run economy you're even more of an idiot than I previously thought!
You clearly also fail to understand that the impact of various monetary and fiscal policies may have a minimal lag whereas the impact of other issues (e.g. A large structural deficit) might have much longer repercussions.
How much is the structural deficit you say? You clearly also fail to understand that the impact of various monetary and fiscal policies may have a minimal lag whereas the impact of other issues (e.g. A large structural deficit) might have much longer repercussions.
///ajd said:
How much is the structural deficit you say?
Already corrected some time ago on the other thread. But good try.At 07:17, Sidicks:
Sidicks said:
Is this the one where you demonstrate that you don't have a clue what a structural deficit is?
I even incorrectly quoted a structural deficit of £160bn (which was actually the total deficit) rather than £60bn, but you didn't pick me up on it as you clearly don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
I even incorrectly quoted a structural deficit of £160bn (which was actually the total deficit) rather than £60bn, but you didn't pick me up on it as you clearly don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
Edited by sidicks on Friday 28th April 21:03
sidicks said:
///ajd said:
How much is the structural deficit you say?
Already corrected some time ago on the other thread. But good try.At 07:17, Sidicks:
Sidicks said:
Is this the one where you demonstrate that you don't have a clue what a structural deficit is?
I even incorrectly quoted a structural deficit of £160bn (which was actually the total deficit) rather than £60bn, but you didn't pick me up on it as you clearly don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
I even incorrectly quoted a structural deficit of £160bn (which was actually the total deficit) rather than £60bn, but you didn't pick me up on it as you clearly don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
Edited by sidicks on Friday 28th April 21:03
sidicks said:
///ajd said:
How much is the structural deficit you say?
StuffMeanwhile you post the value of the structural deficit incorrectly by almost an order of magnitude.
This does not imply a deep and rigorous understanding of the topic; quite the opposite.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff