FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Liz Truss

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Now that she's been busy making all these trade agreements, actually the most trade agreements made by anyone.

Rumours flying around on social media she is waiting in the wings to be the next leader of the Conservatives ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester

God help us all.

She stated today that she’s secured Brexit and the deal included services. That’s something even Boris hasn’t claimed.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham


"Now that she's been busy making all these trade agreements, actually the most trade agreements made by anyone.

Rumours flying around on social media she is waiting in the wings to be the next leader of the Conservatives ?

"

The Conservative Party choose their leaders, not twitter.

Liz Truss is busy clocking up the airmiles, Turkey is the latest country to agree a trade deal with the UK.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one. "

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *armandwet50Couple
over a year ago

Far far away


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one. "

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one. "

But the remoaners told us that wasn’t possible

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *kstallionMan
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

But the remoaners told us that wasn’t possible "

Well it was first impossible then well if its possible it would take around 10 years now when done they don't matter anyway

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward."

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *armandwet50Couple
over a year ago

Far far away


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

"

You have something against the Turks?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

She thinks kids can't read it write as they learn too much about sexism and racism ar school.

She also recently had to have part of her speech chopped

See seems ideal

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?"

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham


"She thinks kids can't read it write as they learn too much about sexism and racism ar school.

She also recently had to have part of her speech chopped

See seems ideal

"

A dollop of irony there!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

[Removed by poster at 29/12/20 12:52:51]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool


"She thinks kids can't read it write as they learn too much about sexism and racism ar school.

She also recently had to have part of her speech chopped

See seems ideal

A dollop of irony there! "

I've been learning too much about sexism

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oxychick35Couple
over a year ago

thornaby


"She thinks kids can't read it write as they learn too much about sexism and racism ar school.

She also recently had to have part of her speech chopped

See seems ideal

A dollop of irony there!

I've been learning too much about sexism"
haha tell us what you’ve learnt ya know me bud always up for learning a bit more lol

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *kstallionMan
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Now that she's been busy making all these trade agreements, actually the most trade agreements made by anyone.

Rumours flying around on social media she is waiting in the wings to be the next leader of the Conservatives ?

"

Never considered her as a future leader but she is doing the right thing in bringing in the good news stories so maybe it will be advantage in the future

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *wosmilersCouple
over a year ago

Heathrowish

I know that this may be inappropriate but politics aside, she does have a filthy past

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS
over a year ago

Stockport

In her position as equalities minister she is utterly vile.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oggoneMan
over a year ago

Derry


"In her position as equalities minister she is utterly vile."
As with all ministerial positions in the current government, support for brexit takes precedence over ability.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool


"In her position as equalities minister she is utterly vile."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-55346920

Another astute appointment.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *wisted999Man
over a year ago

North Bucks

Nobody is going to seriously back her. I keep seeing people champion Gove but he is nothing other than a William Hague type figure.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS
over a year ago

Stockport

There is nobody in the current cabinet that is fit to govern. That includes the prime minister.

It pains me greatly to say, as i think that some of her decisions were appalling, but Mrs Thatcher would regard all this lot as not even capable of cleaning the shit off her shoes.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *dsindyTV/TS
over a year ago

East Lancashire


"There is nobody in the current cabinet that is fit to govern. That includes the prime minister.

It pains me greatly to say, as i think that some of her decisions were appalling, but Mrs Thatcher would regard all this lot as not even capable of cleaning the shit off her shoes."

That was Geoffrey Howe's job.....and he got sick of it.

Back on topic, nearly all the trade deals (as has been pointed out) are just roll overs of existing deals, not better deals but not worse deals (though extra bureaucracy that comes with individual deals may cost more). The final proof will be if OR when new deals are negotiated and the terms THEY bring.

Anyone arguing about how it's better OR worse for us now we are fully out of the EU is just talking shit until these new deals are done.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

But the remoaners told us that wasn’t possible "

Who said this?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 01/01/21 14:26:46]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked."

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

"

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

"

So let's say if Remain had won the referendum, how would we have improved the country? Or were you happy as things are?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

So let's say if Remain had won the referendum, how would we have improved the country? Or were you happy as things are? "

From an economic standpoint, the country was doing pretty well. I think there were issues of equality that need to be addressed - particularly between north and south - young and old - but these are age old problems heightened by a decade of austerity and generally unrelated to being in the EU.

Successive governments could have taken control of our boarders in the way that say Belgium has from within the EU, but they have chosen not because we're so dependent on foreign labour. Our ageing population means we need young people to come into the country, work and pay taxes that help support our social care system - not to mention those foreign workers that labour within the same system. Immigration from the EU will decrease (much to the detriment of our health and social care service and farming industry), but it will increase from outside of the EU. More black and brown people here, which is exactly what some voted to curtail.

I also think we need to be at the top table of the economic super power that is right on our doorstep overlooking our back yard.

The next couple of decades are going to be dominated by the struggle between China, the US and the EU. The UK will simply have to adapt to the fall out rather than leading the shape of it.

The deal we had with the opt outs, and influence was exceptional within such a huge trading block. It cannot and will not be replicated from outside.

Now if that's not of interest to you and say, tax avoidance and/or the erosion of workers rights is, then the EU is bad news and should be left at all cost. However, if these things matter, then it's a sad day for those at the bottom.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

So let's say if Remain had won the referendum, how would we have improved the country? Or were you happy as things are?

From an economic standpoint, the country was doing pretty well. I think there were issues of equality that need to be addressed - particularly between north and south - young and old - but these are age old problems heightened by a decade of austerity and generally unrelated to being in the EU.

Successive governments could have taken control of our boarders in the way that say Belgium has from within the EU, but they have chosen not because we're so dependent on foreign labour. Our ageing population means we need young people to come into the country, work and pay taxes that help support our social care system - not to mention those foreign workers that labour within the same system. Immigration from the EU will decrease (much to the detriment of our health and social care service and farming industry), but it will increase from outside of the EU. More black and brown people here, which is exactly what some voted to curtail.

I also think we need to be at the top table of the economic super power that is right on our doorstep overlooking our back yard.

The next couple of decades are going to be dominated by the struggle between China, the US and the EU. The UK will simply have to adapt to the fall out rather than leading the shape of it.

The deal we had with the opt outs, and influence was exceptional within such a huge trading block. It cannot and will not be replicated from outside.

Now if that's not of interest to you and say, tax avoidance and/or the erosion of workers rights is, then the EU is bad news and should be left at all cost. However, if these things matter, then it's a sad day for those at the bottom."

Its refreshing to read an intelligent post

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

So let's say if Remain had won the referendum, how would we have improved the country? Or were you happy as things are?

From an economic standpoint, the country was doing pretty well. I think there were issues of equality that need to be addressed - particularly between north and south - young and old - but these are age old problems heightened by a decade of austerity and generally unrelated to being in the EU.

Successive governments could have taken control of our boarders in the way that say Belgium has from within the EU, but they have chosen not because we're so dependent on foreign labour. Our ageing population means we need young people to come into the country, work and pay taxes that help support our social care system - not to mention those foreign workers that labour within the same system. Immigration from the EU will decrease (much to the detriment of our health and social care service and farming industry), but it will increase from outside of the EU. More black and brown people here, which is exactly what some voted to curtail.

I also think we need to be at the top table of the economic super power that is right on our doorstep overlooking our back yard.

The next couple of decades are going to be dominated by the struggle between China, the US and the EU. The UK will simply have to adapt to the fall out rather than leading the shape of it.

The deal we had with the opt outs, and influence was exceptional within such a huge trading block. It cannot and will not be replicated from outside.

Now if that's not of interest to you and say, tax avoidance and/or the erosion of workers rights is, then the EU is bad news and should be left at all cost. However, if these things matter, then it's a sad day for those at the bottom."

But we don't have to be so dependant on foreign labour. What happens when the young become old? Bring in even more labour to pay/care for them? That's just a pyramid scheme. The future is fewer manual workers through investment in technology and AI and education, which will benefit people at the bottom. And I really don't get this argument about the EU, USA and China nonsense, individual countries can negotiate deals to best suit their needs as Switzerland do for example

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rench letterCouple
over a year ago

Chorley,


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

So let's say if Remain had won the referendum, how would we have improved the country? Or were you happy as things are? "

Would have been happy with the things as they are. We cet9wont have any improvement with Boris Johnson as PM. Think he is the worst PM we have had in history and have all ways voted Tory.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

So let's say if Remain had won the referendum, how would we have improved the country? Or were you happy as things are?

From an economic standpoint, the country was doing pretty well. I think there were issues of equality that need to be addressed - particularly between north and south - young and old - but these are age old problems heightened by a decade of austerity and generally unrelated to being in the EU.

Successive governments could have taken control of our boarders in the way that say Belgium has from within the EU, but they have chosen not because we're so dependent on foreign labour. Our ageing population means we need young people to come into the country, work and pay taxes that help support our social care system - not to mention those foreign workers that labour within the same system. Immigration from the EU will decrease (much to the detriment of our health and social care service and farming industry), but it will increase from outside of the EU. More black and brown people here, which is exactly what some voted to curtail.

I also think we need to be at the top table of the economic super power that is right on our doorstep overlooking our back yard.

The next couple of decades are going to be dominated by the struggle between China, the US and the EU. The UK will simply have to adapt to the fall out rather than leading the shape of it.

The deal we had with the opt outs, and influence was exceptional within such a huge trading block. It cannot and will not be replicated from outside.

Now if that's not of interest to you and say, tax avoidance and/or the erosion of workers rights is, then the EU is bad news and should be left at all cost. However, if these things matter, then it's a sad day for those at the bottom.

But we don't have to be so dependant on foreign labour. What happens when the young become old? Bring in even more labour to pay/care for them? That's just a pyramid scheme. The future is fewer manual workers through investment in technology and AI and education, which will benefit people at the bottom. And I really don't get this argument about the EU, USA and China nonsense, individual countries can negotiate deals to best suit their needs as Switzerland do for example "

Swiss needs and UK needs are not comparable and I'm not talking about trade deals, I'm talking about global superstructures. We live in a global world technology has seen to that. Now is not the time to retreat from it.

You also talk of investment. I like it, but there's a fundamental problem with your thesis. Our GDP is going to be 4% smaller. That's £120000000000. How are we going to pay for it in a way that doesn't result in a cut to services for those that need them the most ...the people at the bottom.

And the point about training our own ...well how is that going? Ask employers about the difference between UK workers and their foreign counterparts when it comes to social care and for example the catering industry.

We're a small Island, we're always going to be dependent on substantial immigration.

Before the referendum I asked people who were confused about which way to vote, to think of 2 things when deciding:

1. Think of who you're casting your vote alongside (i.e., the main cheerleaders); and

2. whether your fundamental values, wishes, hopes and dreams aligned with theirs.

TLT.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

So let's say if Remain had won the referendum, how would we have improved the country? Or were you happy as things are?

From an economic standpoint, the country was doing pretty well. I think there were issues of equality that need to be addressed - particularly between north and south - young and old - but these are age old problems heightened by a decade of austerity and generally unrelated to being in the EU.

Successive governments could have taken control of our boarders in the way that say Belgium has from within the EU, but they have chosen not because we're so dependent on foreign labour. Our ageing population means we need young people to come into the country, work and pay taxes that help support our social care system - not to mention those foreign workers that labour within the same system. Immigration from the EU will decrease (much to the detriment of our health and social care service and farming industry), but it will increase from outside of the EU. More black and brown people here, which is exactly what some voted to curtail.

I also think we need to be at the top table of the economic super power that is right on our doorstep overlooking our back yard.

The next couple of decades are going to be dominated by the struggle between China, the US and the EU. The UK will simply have to adapt to the fall out rather than leading the shape of it.

The deal we had with the opt outs, and influence was exceptional within such a huge trading block. It cannot and will not be replicated from outside.

Now if that's not of interest to you and say, tax avoidance and/or the erosion of workers rights is, then the EU is bad news and should be left at all cost. However, if these things matter, then it's a sad day for those at the bottom.

But we don't have to be so dependant on foreign labour. What happens when the young become old? Bring in even more labour to pay/care for them? That's just a pyramid scheme. The future is fewer manual workers through investment in technology and AI and education, which will benefit people at the bottom. And I really don't get this argument about the EU, USA and China nonsense, individual countries can negotiate deals to best suit their needs as Switzerland do for example

Swiss needs and UK needs are not comparable and I'm not talking about trade deals, I'm talking about global superstructures. We live in a global world technology has seen to that. Now is not the time to retreat from it.

You also talk of investment. I like it, but there's a fundamental problem with your thesis. Our GDP is going to be 4% smaller. That's £120000000000. How are we going to pay for it in a way that doesn't result in a cut to services for those that need them the most ...the people at the bottom.

And the point about training our own ...well how is that going? Ask employers about the difference between UK workers and their foreign counterparts when it comes to social care and for example the catering industry.

We're a small Island, we're always going to be dependent on substantial immigration.

Before the referendum I asked people who were confused about which way to vote, to think of 2 things when deciding:

1. Think of who you're casting your vote alongside (i.e., the main cheerleaders); and

2. whether your fundamental values, wishes, hopes and dreams aligned with theirs.

TLT."
I've always thought brexiteers arguments have a lot in common with swiss cheese.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

So let's say if Remain had won the referendum, how would we have improved the country? Or were you happy as things are?

From an economic standpoint, the country was doing pretty well. I think there were issues of equality that need to be addressed - particularly between north and south - young and old - but these are age old problems heightened by a decade of austerity and generally unrelated to being in the EU.

Successive governments could have taken control of our boarders in the way that say Belgium has from within the EU, but they have chosen not because we're so dependent on foreign labour. Our ageing population means we need young people to come into the country, work and pay taxes that help support our social care system - not to mention those foreign workers that labour within the same system. Immigration from the EU will decrease (much to the detriment of our health and social care service and farming industry), but it will increase from outside of the EU. More black and brown people here, which is exactly what some voted to curtail.

I also think we need to be at the top table of the economic super power that is right on our doorstep overlooking our back yard.

The next couple of decades are going to be dominated by the struggle between China, the US and the EU. The UK will simply have to adapt to the fall out rather than leading the shape of it.

The deal we had with the opt outs, and influence was exceptional within such a huge trading block. It cannot and will not be replicated from outside.

Now if that's not of interest to you and say, tax avoidance and/or the erosion of workers rights is, then the EU is bad news and should be left at all cost. However, if these things matter, then it's a sad day for those at the bottom.

But we don't have to be so dependant on foreign labour. What happens when the young become old? Bring in even more labour to pay/care for them? That's just a pyramid scheme. The future is fewer manual workers through investment in technology and AI and education, which will benefit people at the bottom. And I really don't get this argument about the EU, USA and China nonsense, individual countries can negotiate deals to best suit their needs as Switzerland do for example

Swiss needs and UK needs are not comparable and I'm not talking about trade deals, I'm talking about global superstructures. We live in a global world technology has seen to that. Now is not the time to retreat from it.

You also talk of investment. I like it, but there's a fundamental problem with your thesis. Our GDP is going to be 4% smaller. That's £120000000000. How are we going to pay for it in a way that doesn't result in a cut to services for those that need them the most ...the people at the bottom.

And the point about training our own ...well how is that going? Ask employers about the difference between UK workers and their foreign counterparts when it comes to social care and for example the catering industry.

We're a small Island, we're always going to be dependent on substantial immigration.

Before the referendum I asked people who were confused about which way to vote, to think of 2 things when deciding:

1. Think of who you're casting your vote alongside (i.e., the main cheerleaders); and

2. whether your fundamental values, wishes, hopes and dreams aligned with theirs.

TLT."

Nice words but what is a global superstructure? Do you think the UK is not a part of that?

How's training been going? Exactly, now it has to improve. How do we pay for it? How do we pay for covid? We need substantial immigration? No we don't.

The main cheerleaders? So what were you trying to imply by that? And why would other people's hopes and wishes necessarily align with theirs? I aligned myself with people like Hugh Gaitskill and Peter Shore, great Labour people of the past

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

So let's say if Remain had won the referendum, how would we have improved the country? Or were you happy as things are?

From an economic standpoint, the country was doing pretty well. I think there were issues of equality that need to be addressed - particularly between north and south - young and old - but these are age old problems heightened by a decade of austerity and generally unrelated to being in the EU.

Successive governments could have taken control of our boarders in the way that say Belgium has from within the EU, but they have chosen not because we're so dependent on foreign labour. Our ageing population means we need young people to come into the country, work and pay taxes that help support our social care system - not to mention those foreign workers that labour within the same system. Immigration from the EU will decrease (much to the detriment of our health and social care service and farming industry), but it will increase from outside of the EU. More black and brown people here, which is exactly what some voted to curtail.

I also think we need to be at the top table of the economic super power that is right on our doorstep overlooking our back yard.

The next couple of decades are going to be dominated by the struggle between China, the US and the EU. The UK will simply have to adapt to the fall out rather than leading the shape of it.

The deal we had with the opt outs, and influence was exceptional within such a huge trading block. It cannot and will not be replicated from outside.

Now if that's not of interest to you and say, tax avoidance and/or the erosion of workers rights is, then the EU is bad news and should be left at all cost. However, if these things matter, then it's a sad day for those at the bottom.

But we don't have to be so dependant on foreign labour. What happens when the young become old? Bring in even more labour to pay/care for them? That's just a pyramid scheme. The future is fewer manual workers through investment in technology and AI and education, which will benefit people at the bottom. And I really don't get this argument about the EU, USA and China nonsense, individual countries can negotiate deals to best suit their needs as Switzerland do for example

Swiss needs and UK needs are not comparable and I'm not talking about trade deals, I'm talking about global superstructures. We live in a global world technology has seen to that. Now is not the time to retreat from it.

You also talk of investment. I like it, but there's a fundamental problem with your thesis. Our GDP is going to be 4% smaller. That's £120000000000. How are we going to pay for it in a way that doesn't result in a cut to services for those that need them the most ...the people at the bottom.

And the point about training our own ...well how is that going? Ask employers about the difference between UK workers and their foreign counterparts when it comes to social care and for example the catering industry.

We're a small Island, we're always going to be dependent on substantial immigration.

Before the referendum I asked people who were confused about which way to vote, to think of 2 things when deciding:

1. Think of who you're casting your vote alongside (i.e., the main cheerleaders); and

2. whether your fundamental values, wishes, hopes and dreams aligned with theirs.

TLT.

Nice words but what is a global superstructure? Do you think the UK is not a part of that?

How's training been going? Exactly, now it has to improve. How do we pay for it? How do we pay for covid? We need substantial immigration? No we don't.

The main cheerleaders? So what were you trying to imply by that? And why would other people's hopes and wishes necessarily align with theirs? I aligned myself with people like Hugh Gaitskill and Peter Shore, great Labour people of the past"

Can Liz go and sign that deal with Japan you reckoned didn't happen now?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

So let's say if Remain had won the referendum, how would we have improved the country? Or were you happy as things are?

From an economic standpoint, the country was doing pretty well. I think there were issues of equality that need to be addressed - particularly between north and south - young and old - but these are age old problems heightened by a decade of austerity and generally unrelated to being in the EU.

Successive governments could have taken control of our boarders in the way that say Belgium has from within the EU, but they have chosen not because we're so dependent on foreign labour. Our ageing population means we need young people to come into the country, work and pay taxes that help support our social care system - not to mention those foreign workers that labour within the same system. Immigration from the EU will decrease (much to the detriment of our health and social care service and farming industry), but it will increase from outside of the EU. More black and brown people here, which is exactly what some voted to curtail.

I also think we need to be at the top table of the economic super power that is right on our doorstep overlooking our back yard.

The next couple of decades are going to be dominated by the struggle between China, the US and the EU. The UK will simply have to adapt to the fall out rather than leading the shape of it.

The deal we had with the opt outs, and influence was exceptional within such a huge trading block. It cannot and will not be replicated from outside.

Now if that's not of interest to you and say, tax avoidance and/or the erosion of workers rights is, then the EU is bad news and should be left at all cost. However, if these things matter, then it's a sad day for those at the bottom.

But we don't have to be so dependant on foreign labour. What happens when the young become old? Bring in even more labour to pay/care for them? That's just a pyramid scheme. The future is fewer manual workers through investment in technology and AI and education, which will benefit people at the bottom. And I really don't get this argument about the EU, USA and China nonsense, individual countries can negotiate deals to best suit their needs as Switzerland do for example

Swiss needs and UK needs are not comparable and I'm not talking about trade deals, I'm talking about global superstructures. We live in a global world technology has seen to that. Now is not the time to retreat from it.

You also talk of investment. I like it, but there's a fundamental problem with your thesis. Our GDP is going to be 4% smaller. That's £120000000000. How are we going to pay for it in a way that doesn't result in a cut to services for those that need them the most ...the people at the bottom.

And the point about training our own ...well how is that going? Ask employers about the difference between UK workers and their foreign counterparts when it comes to social care and for example the catering industry.

We're a small Island, we're always going to be dependent on substantial immigration.

Before the referendum I asked people who were confused about which way to vote, to think of 2 things when deciding:

1. Think of who you're casting your vote alongside (i.e., the main cheerleaders); and

2. whether your fundamental values, wishes, hopes and dreams aligned with theirs.

TLT.

Nice words but what is a global superstructure? Do you think the UK is not a part of that?

How's training been going? Exactly, now it has to improve. How do we pay for it? How do we pay for covid? We need substantial immigration? No we don't.

The main cheerleaders? So what were you trying to imply by that? And why would other people's hopes and wishes necessarily align with theirs? I aligned myself with people like Hugh Gaitskill and Peter Shore, great Labour people of the past

Can Liz go and sign that deal with Japan you reckoned didn't happen now?"

The roll over deal was signed. The new improved trade deal will be signed when it's completed

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

So let's say if Remain had won the referendum, how would we have improved the country? Or were you happy as things are?

From an economic standpoint, the country was doing pretty well. I think there were issues of equality that need to be addressed - particularly between north and south - young and old - but these are age old problems heightened by a decade of austerity and generally unrelated to being in the EU.

Successive governments could have taken control of our boarders in the way that say Belgium has from within the EU, but they have chosen not because we're so dependent on foreign labour. Our ageing population means we need young people to come into the country, work and pay taxes that help support our social care system - not to mention those foreign workers that labour within the same system. Immigration from the EU will decrease (much to the detriment of our health and social care service and farming industry), but it will increase from outside of the EU. More black and brown people here, which is exactly what some voted to curtail.

I also think we need to be at the top table of the economic super power that is right on our doorstep overlooking our back yard.

The next couple of decades are going to be dominated by the struggle between China, the US and the EU. The UK will simply have to adapt to the fall out rather than leading the shape of it.

The deal we had with the opt outs, and influence was exceptional within such a huge trading block. It cannot and will not be replicated from outside.

Now if that's not of interest to you and say, tax avoidance and/or the erosion of workers rights is, then the EU is bad news and should be left at all cost. However, if these things matter, then it's a sad day for those at the bottom.

But we don't have to be so dependant on foreign labour. What happens when the young become old? Bring in even more labour to pay/care for them? That's just a pyramid scheme. The future is fewer manual workers through investment in technology and AI and education, which will benefit people at the bottom. And I really don't get this argument about the EU, USA and China nonsense, individual countries can negotiate deals to best suit their needs as Switzerland do for example

Swiss needs and UK needs are not comparable and I'm not talking about trade deals, I'm talking about global superstructures. We live in a global world technology has seen to that. Now is not the time to retreat from it.

You also talk of investment. I like it, but there's a fundamental problem with your thesis. Our GDP is going to be 4% smaller. That's £120000000000. How are we going to pay for it in a way that doesn't result in a cut to services for those that need them the most ...the people at the bottom.

And the point about training our own ...well how is that going? Ask employers about the difference between UK workers and their foreign counterparts when it comes to social care and for example the catering industry.

We're a small Island, we're always going to be dependent on substantial immigration.

Before the referendum I asked people who were confused about which way to vote, to think of 2 things when deciding:

1. Think of who you're casting your vote alongside (i.e., the main cheerleaders); and

2. whether your fundamental values, wishes, hopes and dreams aligned with theirs.

TLT.

Nice words but what is a global superstructure? Do you think the UK is not a part of that?

How's training been going? Exactly, now it has to improve. How do we pay for it? How do we pay for covid? We need substantial immigration? No we don't.

The main cheerleaders? So what were you trying to imply by that? And why would other people's hopes and wishes necessarily align with theirs? I aligned myself with people like Hugh Gaitskill and Peter Shore, great Labour people of the past

Can Liz go and sign that deal with Japan you reckoned didn't happen now?

The roll over deal was signed. The new improved trade deal will be signed when it's completed "

Not before the Japanese run it by the EU.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

So let's say if Remain had won the referendum, how would we have improved the country? Or were you happy as things are?

From an economic standpoint, the country was doing pretty well. I think there were issues of equality that need to be addressed - particularly between north and south - young and old - but these are age old problems heightened by a decade of austerity and generally unrelated to being in the EU.

Successive governments could have taken control of our boarders in the way that say Belgium has from within the EU, but they have chosen not because we're so dependent on foreign labour. Our ageing population means we need young people to come into the country, work and pay taxes that help support our social care system - not to mention those foreign workers that labour within the same system. Immigration from the EU will decrease (much to the detriment of our health and social care service and farming industry), but it will increase from outside of the EU. More black and brown people here, which is exactly what some voted to curtail.

I also think we need to be at the top table of the economic super power that is right on our doorstep overlooking our back yard.

The next couple of decades are going to be dominated by the struggle between China, the US and the EU. The UK will simply have to adapt to the fall out rather than leading the shape of it.

The deal we had with the opt outs, and influence was exceptional within such a huge trading block. It cannot and will not be replicated from outside.

Now if that's not of interest to you and say, tax avoidance and/or the erosion of workers rights is, then the EU is bad news and should be left at all cost. However, if these things matter, then it's a sad day for those at the bottom.

But we don't have to be so dependant on foreign labour. What happens when the young become old? Bring in even more labour to pay/care for them? That's just a pyramid scheme. The future is fewer manual workers through investment in technology and AI and education, which will benefit people at the bottom. And I really don't get this argument about the EU, USA and China nonsense, individual countries can negotiate deals to best suit their needs as Switzerland do for example

Swiss needs and UK needs are not comparable and I'm not talking about trade deals, I'm talking about global superstructures. We live in a global world technology has seen to that. Now is not the time to retreat from it.

You also talk of investment. I like it, but there's a fundamental problem with your thesis. Our GDP is going to be 4% smaller. That's £120000000000. How are we going to pay for it in a way that doesn't result in a cut to services for those that need them the most ...the people at the bottom.

And the point about training our own ...well how is that going? Ask employers about the difference between UK workers and their foreign counterparts when it comes to social care and for example the catering industry.

We're a small Island, we're always going to be dependent on substantial immigration.

Before the referendum I asked people who were confused about which way to vote, to think of 2 things when deciding:

1. Think of who you're casting your vote alongside (i.e., the main cheerleaders); and

2. whether your fundamental values, wishes, hopes and dreams aligned with theirs.

TLT.

Nice words but what is a global superstructure? Do you think the UK is not a part of that?

How's training been going? Exactly, now it has to improve. How do we pay for it? How do we pay for covid? We need substantial immigration? No we don't.

The main cheerleaders? So what were you trying to imply by that? And why would other people's hopes and wishes necessarily align with theirs? I aligned myself with people like Hugh Gaitskill and Peter Shore, great Labour people of the past

Can Liz go and sign that deal with Japan you reckoned didn't happen now?

The roll over deal was signed. The new improved trade deal will be signed when it's completed "

Can you not just admit you were wrong on this: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54654814

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

So let's say if Remain had won the referendum, how would we have improved the country? Or were you happy as things are?

From an economic standpoint, the country was doing pretty well. I think there were issues of equality that need to be addressed - particularly between north and south - young and old - but these are age old problems heightened by a decade of austerity and generally unrelated to being in the EU.

Successive governments could have taken control of our boarders in the way that say Belgium has from within the EU, but they have chosen not because we're so dependent on foreign labour. Our ageing population means we need young people to come into the country, work and pay taxes that help support our social care system - not to mention those foreign workers that labour within the same system. Immigration from the EU will decrease (much to the detriment of our health and social care service and farming industry), but it will increase from outside of the EU. More black and brown people here, which is exactly what some voted to curtail.

I also think we need to be at the top table of the economic super power that is right on our doorstep overlooking our back yard.

The next couple of decades are going to be dominated by the struggle between China, the US and the EU. The UK will simply have to adapt to the fall out rather than leading the shape of it.

The deal we had with the opt outs, and influence was exceptional within such a huge trading block. It cannot and will not be replicated from outside.

Now if that's not of interest to you and say, tax avoidance and/or the erosion of workers rights is, then the EU is bad news and should be left at all cost. However, if these things matter, then it's a sad day for those at the bottom.

But we don't have to be so dependant on foreign labour. What happens when the young become old? Bring in even more labour to pay/care for them? That's just a pyramid scheme. The future is fewer manual workers through investment in technology and AI and education, which will benefit people at the bottom. And I really don't get this argument about the EU, USA and China nonsense, individual countries can negotiate deals to best suit their needs as Switzerland do for example

Swiss needs and UK needs are not comparable and I'm not talking about trade deals, I'm talking about global superstructures. We live in a global world technology has seen to that. Now is not the time to retreat from it.

You also talk of investment. I like it, but there's a fundamental problem with your thesis. Our GDP is going to be 4% smaller. That's £120000000000. How are we going to pay for it in a way that doesn't result in a cut to services for those that need them the most ...the people at the bottom.

And the point about training our own ...well how is that going? Ask employers about the difference between UK workers and their foreign counterparts when it comes to social care and for example the catering industry.

We're a small Island, we're always going to be dependent on substantial immigration.

Before the referendum I asked people who were confused about which way to vote, to think of 2 things when deciding:

1. Think of who you're casting your vote alongside (i.e., the main cheerleaders); and

2. whether your fundamental values, wishes, hopes and dreams aligned with theirs.

TLT.

Nice words but what is a global superstructure? Do you think the UK is not a part of that?

How's training been going? Exactly, now it has to improve. How do we pay for it? How do we pay for covid? We need substantial immigration? No we don't.

The main cheerleaders? So what were you trying to imply by that? And why would other people's hopes and wishes necessarily align with theirs? I aligned myself with people like Hugh Gaitskill and Peter Shore, great Labour people of the past

Can Liz go and sign that deal with Japan you reckoned didn't happen now?

The roll over deal was signed. The new improved trade deal will be signed when it's completed

Can you not just admit you were wrong on this: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54654814"

No. The BBC can call it what they like.

But if I am wrong, then are you telling me that the UK can complete a trade deal with Japan in just a few months? If so that's great news the USA one should be completed before the end of the year at that rate

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ealthy_and_HungMan
over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney


"You have something against the Turks?"

Hmmm ... both main Leave campaigns referendum flyers, press releases, posters etc certainly appeared to utilise anti-turkish sentiment to scare voters. johnson and farage are both quoted verbally handing out the misinformation at press conferences.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"You have something against the Turks?

Hmmm ... both main Leave campaigns referendum flyers, press releases, posters etc certainly appeared to utilise anti-turkish sentiment to scare voters. johnson and farage are both quoted verbally handing out the misinformation at press conferences."

Isn't Johnson a Turk?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

So let's say if Remain had won the referendum, how would we have improved the country? Or were you happy as things are?

From an economic standpoint, the country was doing pretty well. I think there were issues of equality that need to be addressed - particularly between north and south - young and old - but these are age old problems heightened by a decade of austerity and generally unrelated to being in the EU.

Successive governments could have taken control of our boarders in the way that say Belgium has from within the EU, but they have chosen not because we're so dependent on foreign labour. Our ageing population means we need young people to come into the country, work and pay taxes that help support our social care system - not to mention those foreign workers that labour within the same system. Immigration from the EU will decrease (much to the detriment of our health and social care service and farming industry), but it will increase from outside of the EU. More black and brown people here, which is exactly what some voted to curtail.

I also think we need to be at the top table of the economic super power that is right on our doorstep overlooking our back yard.

The next couple of decades are going to be dominated by the struggle between China, the US and the EU. The UK will simply have to adapt to the fall out rather than leading the shape of it.

The deal we had with the opt outs, and influence was exceptional within such a huge trading block. It cannot and will not be replicated from outside.

Now if that's not of interest to you and say, tax avoidance and/or the erosion of workers rights is, then the EU is bad news and should be left at all cost. However, if these things matter, then it's a sad day for those at the bottom.

But we don't have to be so dependant on foreign labour. What happens when the young become old? Bring in even more labour to pay/care for them? That's just a pyramid scheme. The future is fewer manual workers through investment in technology and AI and education, which will benefit people at the bottom. And I really don't get this argument about the EU, USA and China nonsense, individual countries can negotiate deals to best suit their needs as Switzerland do for example

Swiss needs and UK needs are not comparable and I'm not talking about trade deals, I'm talking about global superstructures. We live in a global world technology has seen to that. Now is not the time to retreat from it.

You also talk of investment. I like it, but there's a fundamental problem with your thesis. Our GDP is going to be 4% smaller. That's £120000000000. How are we going to pay for it in a way that doesn't result in a cut to services for those that need them the most ...the people at the bottom.

And the point about training our own ...well how is that going? Ask employers about the difference between UK workers and their foreign counterparts when it comes to social care and for example the catering industry.

We're a small Island, we're always going to be dependent on substantial immigration.

Before the referendum I asked people who were confused about which way to vote, to think of 2 things when deciding:

1. Think of who you're casting your vote alongside (i.e., the main cheerleaders); and

2. whether your fundamental values, wishes, hopes and dreams aligned with theirs.

TLT.

Nice words but what is a global superstructure? Do you think the UK is not a part of that?

How's training been going? Exactly, now it has to improve. How do we pay for it? How do we pay for covid? We need substantial immigration? No we don't.

The main cheerleaders? So what were you trying to imply by that? And why would other people's hopes and wishes necessarily align with theirs? I aligned myself with people like Hugh Gaitskill and Peter Shore, great Labour people of the past

Can Liz go and sign that deal with Japan you reckoned didn't happen now?

The roll over deal was signed. The new improved trade deal will be signed when it's completed

Can you not just admit you were wrong on this: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54654814

No. The BBC can call it what they like.

But if I am wrong, then are you telling me that the UK can complete a trade deal with Japan in just a few months? If so that's great news the USA one should be completed before the end of the year at that rate "

Its not a role over is it and it was signed ages ago and comes in today

.....You are wrong.....

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

So let's say if Remain had won the referendum, how would we have improved the country? Or were you happy as things are?

From an economic standpoint, the country was doing pretty well. I think there were issues of equality that need to be addressed - particularly between north and south - young and old - but these are age old problems heightened by a decade of austerity and generally unrelated to being in the EU.

Successive governments could have taken control of our boarders in the way that say Belgium has from within the EU, but they have chosen not because we're so dependent on foreign labour. Our ageing population means we need young people to come into the country, work and pay taxes that help support our social care system - not to mention those foreign workers that labour within the same system. Immigration from the EU will decrease (much to the detriment of our health and social care service and farming industry), but it will increase from outside of the EU. More black and brown people here, which is exactly what some voted to curtail.

I also think we need to be at the top table of the economic super power that is right on our doorstep overlooking our back yard.

The next couple of decades are going to be dominated by the struggle between China, the US and the EU. The UK will simply have to adapt to the fall out rather than leading the shape of it.

The deal we had with the opt outs, and influence was exceptional within such a huge trading block. It cannot and will not be replicated from outside.

Now if that's not of interest to you and say, tax avoidance and/or the erosion of workers rights is, then the EU is bad news and should be left at all cost. However, if these things matter, then it's a sad day for those at the bottom.

But we don't have to be so dependant on foreign labour. What happens when the young become old? Bring in even more labour to pay/care for them? That's just a pyramid scheme. The future is fewer manual workers through investment in technology and AI and education, which will benefit people at the bottom. And I really don't get this argument about the EU, USA and China nonsense, individual countries can negotiate deals to best suit their needs as Switzerland do for example

Swiss needs and UK needs are not comparable and I'm not talking about trade deals, I'm talking about global superstructures. We live in a global world technology has seen to that. Now is not the time to retreat from it.

You also talk of investment. I like it, but there's a fundamental problem with your thesis. Our GDP is going to be 4% smaller. That's £120000000000. How are we going to pay for it in a way that doesn't result in a cut to services for those that need them the most ...the people at the bottom.

And the point about training our own ...well how is that going? Ask employers about the difference between UK workers and their foreign counterparts when it comes to social care and for example the catering industry.

We're a small Island, we're always going to be dependent on substantial immigration.

Before the referendum I asked people who were confused about which way to vote, to think of 2 things when deciding:

1. Think of who you're casting your vote alongside (i.e., the main cheerleaders); and

2. whether your fundamental values, wishes, hopes and dreams aligned with theirs.

TLT.

Nice words but what is a global superstructure? Do you think the UK is not a part of that?

How's training been going? Exactly, now it has to improve. How do we pay for it? How do we pay for covid? We need substantial immigration? No we don't.

The main cheerleaders? So what were you trying to imply by that? And why would other people's hopes and wishes necessarily align with theirs? I aligned myself with people like Hugh Gaitskill and Peter Shore, great Labour people of the past

Can Liz go and sign that deal with Japan you reckoned didn't happen now?

The roll over deal was signed. The new improved trade deal will be signed when it's completed

Can you not just admit you were wrong on this: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54654814

No. The BBC can call it what they like.

But if I am wrong, then are you telling me that the UK can complete a trade deal with Japan in just a few months? If so that's great news the USA one should be completed before the end of the year at that rate

Its not a role over is it and it was signed ages ago and comes in today

.....You are wrong....."

So the UK can complete trade deals within months. Sound

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

So let's say if Remain had won the referendum, how would we have improved the country? Or were you happy as things are?

From an economic standpoint, the country was doing pretty well. I think there were issues of equality that need to be addressed - particularly between north and south - young and old - but these are age old problems heightened by a decade of austerity and generally unrelated to being in the EU.

Successive governments could have taken control of our boarders in the way that say Belgium has from within the EU, but they have chosen not because we're so dependent on foreign labour. Our ageing population means we need young people to come into the country, work and pay taxes that help support our social care system - not to mention those foreign workers that labour within the same system. Immigration from the EU will decrease (much to the detriment of our health and social care service and farming industry), but it will increase from outside of the EU. More black and brown people here, which is exactly what some voted to curtail.

I also think we need to be at the top table of the economic super power that is right on our doorstep overlooking our back yard.

The next couple of decades are going to be dominated by the struggle between China, the US and the EU. The UK will simply have to adapt to the fall out rather than leading the shape of it.

The deal we had with the opt outs, and influence was exceptional within such a huge trading block. It cannot and will not be replicated from outside.

Now if that's not of interest to you and say, tax avoidance and/or the erosion of workers rights is, then the EU is bad news and should be left at all cost. However, if these things matter, then it's a sad day for those at the bottom.

But we don't have to be so dependant on foreign labour. What happens when the young become old? Bring in even more labour to pay/care for them? That's just a pyramid scheme. The future is fewer manual workers through investment in technology and AI and education, which will benefit people at the bottom. And I really don't get this argument about the EU, USA and China nonsense, individual countries can negotiate deals to best suit their needs as Switzerland do for example

Swiss needs and UK needs are not comparable and I'm not talking about trade deals, I'm talking about global superstructures. We live in a global world technology has seen to that. Now is not the time to retreat from it.

You also talk of investment. I like it, but there's a fundamental problem with your thesis. Our GDP is going to be 4% smaller. That's £120000000000. How are we going to pay for it in a way that doesn't result in a cut to services for those that need them the most ...the people at the bottom.

And the point about training our own ...well how is that going? Ask employers about the difference between UK workers and their foreign counterparts when it comes to social care and for example the catering industry.

We're a small Island, we're always going to be dependent on substantial immigration.

Before the referendum I asked people who were confused about which way to vote, to think of 2 things when deciding:

1. Think of who you're casting your vote alongside (i.e., the main cheerleaders); and

2. whether your fundamental values, wishes, hopes and dreams aligned with theirs.

TLT.

Nice words but what is a global superstructure? Do you think the UK is not a part of that?

How's training been going? Exactly, now it has to improve. How do we pay for it? How do we pay for covid? We need substantial immigration? No we don't.

The main cheerleaders? So what were you trying to imply by that? And why would other people's hopes and wishes necessarily align with theirs? I aligned myself with people like Hugh Gaitskill and Peter Shore, great Labour people of the past

Can Liz go and sign that deal with Japan you reckoned didn't happen now?

The roll over deal was signed. The new improved trade deal will be signed when it's completed

Can you not just admit you were wrong on this: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54654814

No. The BBC can call it what they like.

But if I am wrong, then are you telling me that the UK can complete a trade deal with Japan in just a few months? If so that's great news the USA one should be completed before the end of the year at that rate

Its not a role over is it and it was signed ages ago and comes in today

.....You are wrong.....

So the UK can complete trade deals within months. Sound "

It's a crap one but yeah, are you admitting you were wrong?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

So let's say if Remain had won the referendum, how would we have improved the country? Or were you happy as things are?

From an economic standpoint, the country was doing pretty well. I think there were issues of equality that need to be addressed - particularly between north and south - young and old - but these are age old problems heightened by a decade of austerity and generally unrelated to being in the EU.

Successive governments could have taken control of our boarders in the way that say Belgium has from within the EU, but they have chosen not because we're so dependent on foreign labour. Our ageing population means we need young people to come into the country, work and pay taxes that help support our social care system - not to mention those foreign workers that labour within the same system. Immigration from the EU will decrease (much to the detriment of our health and social care service and farming industry), but it will increase from outside of the EU. More black and brown people here, which is exactly what some voted to curtail.

I also think we need to be at the top table of the economic super power that is right on our doorstep overlooking our back yard.

The next couple of decades are going to be dominated by the struggle between China, the US and the EU. The UK will simply have to adapt to the fall out rather than leading the shape of it.

The deal we had with the opt outs, and influence was exceptional within such a huge trading block. It cannot and will not be replicated from outside.

Now if that's not of interest to you and say, tax avoidance and/or the erosion of workers rights is, then the EU is bad news and should be left at all cost. However, if these things matter, then it's a sad day for those at the bottom.

But we don't have to be so dependant on foreign labour. What happens when the young become old? Bring in even more labour to pay/care for them? That's just a pyramid scheme. The future is fewer manual workers through investment in technology and AI and education, which will benefit people at the bottom. And I really don't get this argument about the EU, USA and China nonsense, individual countries can negotiate deals to best suit their needs as Switzerland do for example

Swiss needs and UK needs are not comparable and I'm not talking about trade deals, I'm talking about global superstructures. We live in a global world technology has seen to that. Now is not the time to retreat from it.

You also talk of investment. I like it, but there's a fundamental problem with your thesis. Our GDP is going to be 4% smaller. That's £120000000000. How are we going to pay for it in a way that doesn't result in a cut to services for those that need them the most ...the people at the bottom.

And the point about training our own ...well how is that going? Ask employers about the difference between UK workers and their foreign counterparts when it comes to social care and for example the catering industry.

We're a small Island, we're always going to be dependent on substantial immigration.

Before the referendum I asked people who were confused about which way to vote, to think of 2 things when deciding:

1. Think of who you're casting your vote alongside (i.e., the main cheerleaders); and

2. whether your fundamental values, wishes, hopes and dreams aligned with theirs.

TLT.

Nice words but what is a global superstructure? Do you think the UK is not a part of that?

How's training been going? Exactly, now it has to improve. How do we pay for it? How do we pay for covid? We need substantial immigration? No we don't.

The main cheerleaders? So what were you trying to imply by that? And why would other people's hopes and wishes necessarily align with theirs? I aligned myself with people like Hugh Gaitskill and Peter Shore, great Labour people of the past

Can Liz go and sign that deal with Japan you reckoned didn't happen now?

The roll over deal was signed. The new improved trade deal will be signed when it's completed

Can you not just admit you were wrong on this: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54654814

No. The BBC can call it what they like.

But if I am wrong, then are you telling me that the UK can complete a trade deal with Japan in just a few months? If so that's great news the USA one should be completed before the end of the year at that rate

Its not a role over is it and it was signed ages ago and comes in today

.....You are wrong.....

So the UK can complete trade deals within months. Sound

It's a crap one but yeah, are you admitting you were wrong? "

No. But would it make you feel better if I did?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Now that she's been busy making all these trade agreements, actually the most trade agreements made by anyone.

Rumours flying around on social media she is waiting in the wings to be the next leader of the Conservatives ?

"

Fuck no.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

So let's say if Remain had won the referendum, how would we have improved the country? Or were you happy as things are?

From an economic standpoint, the country was doing pretty well. I think there were issues of equality that need to be addressed - particularly between north and south - young and old - but these are age old problems heightened by a decade of austerity and generally unrelated to being in the EU.

Successive governments could have taken control of our boarders in the way that say Belgium has from within the EU, but they have chosen not because we're so dependent on foreign labour. Our ageing population means we need young people to come into the country, work and pay taxes that help support our social care system - not to mention those foreign workers that labour within the same system. Immigration from the EU will decrease (much to the detriment of our health and social care service and farming industry), but it will increase from outside of the EU. More black and brown people here, which is exactly what some voted to curtail.

I also think we need to be at the top table of the economic super power that is right on our doorstep overlooking our back yard.

The next couple of decades are going to be dominated by the struggle between China, the US and the EU. The UK will simply have to adapt to the fall out rather than leading the shape of it.

The deal we had with the opt outs, and influence was exceptional within such a huge trading block. It cannot and will not be replicated from outside.

Now if that's not of interest to you and say, tax avoidance and/or the erosion of workers rights is, then the EU is bad news and should be left at all cost. However, if these things matter, then it's a sad day for those at the bottom.

But we don't have to be so dependant on foreign labour. What happens when the young become old? Bring in even more labour to pay/care for them? That's just a pyramid scheme. The future is fewer manual workers through investment in technology and AI and education, which will benefit people at the bottom. And I really don't get this argument about the EU, USA and China nonsense, individual countries can negotiate deals to best suit their needs as Switzerland do for example

Swiss needs and UK needs are not comparable and I'm not talking about trade deals, I'm talking about global superstructures. We live in a global world technology has seen to that. Now is not the time to retreat from it.

You also talk of investment. I like it, but there's a fundamental problem with your thesis. Our GDP is going to be 4% smaller. That's £120000000000. How are we going to pay for it in a way that doesn't result in a cut to services for those that need them the most ...the people at the bottom.

And the point about training our own ...well how is that going? Ask employers about the difference between UK workers and their foreign counterparts when it comes to social care and for example the catering industry.

We're a small Island, we're always going to be dependent on substantial immigration.

Before the referendum I asked people who were confused about which way to vote, to think of 2 things when deciding:

1. Think of who you're casting your vote alongside (i.e., the main cheerleaders); and

2. whether your fundamental values, wishes, hopes and dreams aligned with theirs.

TLT.

Nice words but what is a global superstructure? Do you think the UK is not a part of that?

How's training been going? Exactly, now it has to improve. How do we pay for it? How do we pay for covid? We need substantial immigration? No we don't.

The main cheerleaders? So what were you trying to imply by that? And why would other people's hopes and wishes necessarily align with theirs? I aligned myself with people like Hugh Gaitskill and Peter Shore, great Labour people of the past

Can Liz go and sign that deal with Japan you reckoned didn't happen now?

The roll over deal was signed. The new improved trade deal will be signed when it's completed

Can you not just admit you were wrong on this: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54654814

No. The BBC can call it what they like.

But if I am wrong, then are you telling me that the UK can complete a trade deal with Japan in just a few months? If so that's great news the USA one should be completed before the end of the year at that rate

Its not a role over is it and it was signed ages ago and comes in today

.....You are wrong.....

So the UK can complete trade deals within months. Sound

It's a crap one but yeah, are you admitting you were wrong?

No. But would it make you feel better if I did? "

I mean it's not a debate, Liz Truss signed a new deal in October, you are just wrong if you can't acknowledge that.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-sign-free-trade-agreement

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ebbie69Couple
over a year ago

milton keynes

The Japan deal was agreed earlier this year. Obviously it could not take effect until the end of the transition period hence why it comes into effect today. Mostly a copy and paste of the EU agreement with a few entry's requested by the UK. It also contains an agreement that Japan will back the UK's application to the trans Pacific trade group

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"You have something against the Turks?

Hmmm ... both main Leave campaigns referendum flyers, press releases, posters etc certainly appeared to utilise anti-turkish sentiment to scare voters. johnson and farage are both quoted verbally handing out the misinformation at press conferences.

Isn't Johnson a Turk? "

No hes english but his dad is now french.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ealthy_and_HungMan
over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney


"Isn't Johnson a Turk? "

and?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Isn't Johnson a Turk?

and?

"

And he's done a cracking job over the last few years, helped to win the referendum, won the Tory leadership contest,won a general election with an 80 seat majority and put an end to Corbyn, got Brexit done and got the biggest free trade agreement in history, so you've gotta love a Turk don't ya think?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *innMan
over a year ago

edinburgh


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one. "

This

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *innMan
over a year ago

edinburgh


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible "

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *innMan
over a year ago

edinburgh


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?"

Doesn’t everyone - the politics is mad and dangerous.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ealthy_and_HungMan
over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney


"Isn't Johnson a Turk?

and?

And he's done a cracking job over the last few years, helped to win the referendum, won the Tory leadership contest,won a general election with an 80 seat majority and put an end to Corbyn, got Brexit done and got the biggest free trade agreement in history, so you've gotta love a Turk don't ya think? "

no, i don't

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *kstallionMan
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had. "

Exactly how is it under par to what we had before.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *losguygl3Man
over a year ago

Gloucester


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

Makes sense to maintain the status quo as much as possible, consolidate, then move forward.

This made me smile .

So keep the rules although we pay more now.

Consolidate what or do you mean limit the damage .

Move forward . Yes looks now we will be letting the Turks in well before the EU .

The argument put forward by brexiteers was for “better” trade deals not accepting the same deals.

Otherwise what was the point of leaving?

So we can therefore assume the only reason for leaving was immigration which when you look at non EU where we have always had the biggest number of immigrants that number is still going up year on year. I don’t think dependants come under the points system yet. Could change im sure.

Turkey will now add to that number coming over according to Erdogan that well known liberal Muslim leader who’s still killing the Kurds who fought alongside our guys in Iraq.

You have something against the Turks?

It’s a thread about new trade deals but some people like trying to derail it and provoke a reaction on a question that hasn’t been asked.

The ironic thing is that Brexiteers always telegraph the benefit of leaving our most lucrative trade deal ever in the history of the UK as, wait for it, trade deals.

Trade deals that cannot hope to even replicate let alone better what we had, in terms of economic benefit.

Take the much hailed UK-US trade deal, for example, which may turn up in 10 years or so.

Our current government predicts that the benefit of such a deal would be a 0.16% economic boost. And at what cost to our agricultural industry and general standards (which by the way, may make exporting to the EU more costly and problematic).

Again, a 4% economic decline as a result of leaving the single market (again the gov's own statistics).

No, I've yet to encounter any Brexiteer arguments that stand up to significant, detailed scrutiny.

Brexit was about immigration and emotion for most of the the Brexiteers I've come across. Certainly not facts and evidence, that's for sure.

So let's say if Remain had won the referendum, how would we have improved the country? Or were you happy as things are?

From an economic standpoint, the country was doing pretty well. I think there were issues of equality that need to be addressed - particularly between north and south - young and old - but these are age old problems heightened by a decade of austerity and generally unrelated to being in the EU.

Successive governments could have taken control of our boarders in the way that say Belgium has from within the EU, but they have chosen not because we're so dependent on foreign labour. Our ageing population means we need young people to come into the country, work and pay taxes that help support our social care system - not to mention those foreign workers that labour within the same system. Immigration from the EU will decrease (much to the detriment of our health and social care service and farming industry), but it will increase from outside of the EU. More black and brown people here, which is exactly what some voted to curtail.

I also think we need to be at the top table of the economic super power that is right on our doorstep overlooking our back yard.

The next couple of decades are going to be dominated by the struggle between China, the US and the EU. The UK will simply have to adapt to the fall out rather than leading the shape of it.

The deal we had with the opt outs, and influence was exceptional within such a huge trading block. It cannot and will not be replicated from outside.

Now if that's not of interest to you and say, tax avoidance and/or the erosion of workers rights is, then the EU is bad news and should be left at all cost. However, if these things matter, then it's a sad day for those at the bottom."

Perfectly put!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *losguygl3Man
over a year ago

Gloucester


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

Exactly how is it under par to what we had before. "

The financial benefit is about half the value of what it would have been with the EU agreement we had.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *losguygl3Man
over a year ago

Gloucester


"Isn't Johnson a Turk?

and?

And he's done a cracking job over the last few years, helped to win the referendum, won the Tory leadership contest,won a general election with an 80 seat majority and put an end to Corbyn, got Brexit done and got the biggest free trade agreement in history, so you've gotta love a Turk don't ya think? "

Ha ha ha! Most of those things are bad for Britain. And you're celebrating them! Ha ha ha! You are funny

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *losguygl3Man
over a year ago

Gloucester


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

Exactly how is it under par to what we had before.

The financial benefit is about half the value of what it would have been with the EU agreement we had."

Correcting myself, value with our old deal was £2.6bn, the new one is £1.5bn, so not half.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *kstallionMan
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

Exactly how is it under par to what we had before.

The financial benefit is about half the value of what it would have been with the EU agreement we had."

How exactly is it given its a direct copy. Please help and show what differences there are and where it shows to be half the value

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had. "

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise."

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise."

How's it any better? I mean Liz Truss tried to make a point about Soy sauce didn't she! She pointed out there would be a reduction in tariffs but it also turned out she was comparing to WTO terms...We paid no tariffs on it during the transition period.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *kstallionMan
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

How's it any better? I mean Liz Truss tried to make a point about Soy sauce didn't she! She pointed out there would be a reduction in tariffs but it also turned out she was comparing to WTO terms...We paid no tariffs on it during the transition period."

It's mostly identical with just a few extras thrown in. The basis of financial services and rules of origin. As someone else noted the other day it is reported to contain an agreement that Japan will back the UK's accession to trans Pacific deal

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market."

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish. "

At the end of the day no matter how much lipstick is used brexit will forever be a pig.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish. "

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!"

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million"

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!"

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention"

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention"

"Let’s look at the ‘boost to UK economy’ that the government announced will be £1.5bn over the next ten to fifteen years. First, ignore the fact that this is a small amount relative to the overall economy or that it might take some time to materialise because, in fairness, any such increase could mean a significant boost to small firms, especially in the ‘left behind’ or ‘levelling up’ parts of the country. Instead, the big, billion pound question is, how does it compare to the EU-Japan trade deal that we could have had?

By this measure, the UK government’s new deal is a failure. It makes our country poorer than it could have been. The government has published an impact assessment for the EU-Japan deal as well as their ‘scoping assessment’ for the UK-Japan deal. The government’s own best guess for the EU-Japan deal was that it would boost our economy by £2.1 to £3 bn. In recent announcements then, the government has been claiming a Brexit victory despite surely seeing that £1.5bn is less than £2-3bn.

To my knowledge, the government hasn’t been challenged on these figures directly in the press or Chamber but from other questions and answers their reasoning is fairly clear: the UK is leaving the EU and therefore the UK cannot have the EU-Japan trade deal, and subsequently any boost from the UK-Japan deal is more than we would have had. "

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

"

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

"Let’s look at the ‘boost to UK economy’ that the government announced will be £1.5bn over the next ten to fifteen years. First, ignore the fact that this is a small amount relative to the overall economy or that it might take some time to materialise because, in fairness, any such increase could mean a significant boost to small firms, especially in the ‘left behind’ or ‘levelling up’ parts of the country. Instead, the big, billion pound question is, how does it compare to the EU-Japan trade deal that we could have had?

By this measure, the UK government’s new deal is a failure. It makes our country poorer than it could have been. The government has published an impact assessment for the EU-Japan deal as well as their ‘scoping assessment’ for the UK-Japan deal. The government’s own best guess for the EU-Japan deal was that it would boost our economy by £2.1 to £3 bn. In recent announcements then, the government has been claiming a Brexit victory despite surely seeing that £1.5bn is less than £2-3bn.

To my knowledge, the government hasn’t been challenged on these figures directly in the press or Chamber but from other questions and answers their reasoning is fairly clear: the UK is leaving the EU and therefore the UK cannot have the EU-Japan trade deal, and subsequently any boost from the UK-Japan deal is more than we would have had. ""

The full fact link posted

https://fullfact.org/economy/japan-eu-deal-thornberry/

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote"

I saw these at the time, worth tighter state aid rules and projected loses?

"uncertainty over how it will work in practice could overshadow some possible gains. “A lot of how it works may just have to come out in the wash,” The NFU don't seem to sure of the benefit there.

In reality it's a rushed trade deal with one or two tweaks that seems to heavily favour the Japanese, perhaps why Truss was unable to name any advantages in parliament and why they didn't make that much of a song and dance about it.

In fact Silverhorn didn't even know it happened

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

"Let’s look at the ‘boost to UK economy’ that the government announced will be £1.5bn over the next ten to fifteen years. First, ignore the fact that this is a small amount relative to the overall economy or that it might take some time to materialise because, in fairness, any such increase could mean a significant boost to small firms, especially in the ‘left behind’ or ‘levelling up’ parts of the country. Instead, the big, billion pound question is, how does it compare to the EU-Japan trade deal that we could have had?

By this measure, the UK government’s new deal is a failure. It makes our country poorer than it could have been. The government has published an impact assessment for the EU-Japan deal as well as their ‘scoping assessment’ for the UK-Japan deal. The government’s own best guess for the EU-Japan deal was that it would boost our economy by £2.1 to £3 bn. In recent announcements then, the government has been claiming a Brexit victory despite surely seeing that £1.5bn is less than £2-3bn.

To my knowledge, the government hasn’t been challenged on these figures directly in the press or Chamber but from other questions and answers their reasoning is fairly clear: the UK is leaving the EU and therefore the UK cannot have the EU-Japan trade deal, and subsequently any boost from the UK-Japan deal is more than we would have had. "

The full fact link posted

https://fullfact.org/economy/japan-eu-deal-thornberry/"

I've read that already, the government didn't dispute the claims and were using that study.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote"

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!"

Economies of scale? What you saying, Japan is gonna send 100 million Playstations to one location in Europe but will only send 10 million to the UK and they’re gonna cost more? Bahahahha it’s just one silly claim after another.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

"Let’s look at the ‘boost to UK economy’ that the government announced will be £1.5bn over the next ten to fifteen years. First, ignore the fact that this is a small amount relative to the overall economy or that it might take some time to materialise because, in fairness, any such increase could mean a significant boost to small firms, especially in the ‘left behind’ or ‘levelling up’ parts of the country. Instead, the big, billion pound question is, how does it compare to the EU-Japan trade deal that we could have had?

By this measure, the UK government’s new deal is a failure. It makes our country poorer than it could have been. The government has published an impact assessment for the EU-Japan deal as well as their ‘scoping assessment’ for the UK-Japan deal. The government’s own best guess for the EU-Japan deal was that it would boost our economy by £2.1 to £3 bn. In recent announcements then, the government has been claiming a Brexit victory despite surely seeing that £1.5bn is less than £2-3bn.

To my knowledge, the government hasn’t been challenged on these figures directly in the press or Chamber but from other questions and answers their reasoning is fairly clear: the UK is leaving the EU and therefore the UK cannot have the EU-Japan trade deal, and subsequently any boost from the UK-Japan deal is more than we would have had. "

The full fact link posted

https://fullfact.org/economy/japan-eu-deal-thornberry/

I've read that already, the government didn't dispute the claims and were using that study."

You’ve read full fact.org pointing out the figures were based on an eleven year old study? That they’ve debunked it entirely..... and you’re still using those figures? Comical really.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

Economies of scale? What you saying, Japan is gonna send 100 million Playstations to one location in Europe but will only send 10 million to the UK and they’re gonna cost more? Bahahahha it’s just one silly claim after another. "

Not sure if business is your thing. If the uk get 10 million and the EU get 100 million there would obiviously be manufacturing savings and shipping savings on the larger quantity, are u saying the Japanese love us so much we get the same deal ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

Economies of scale? What you saying, Japan is gonna send 100 million Playstations to one location in Europe but will only send 10 million to the UK and they’re gonna cost more? Bahahahha it’s just one silly claim after another.

Not sure if business is your thing. If the uk get 10 million and the EU get 100 million there would obiviously be manufacturing savings and shipping savings on the larger quantity, are u saying the Japanese love us so much we get the same deal ?"

Lol stellar business acumen there.

In reality, Sony make country specific versions and packages, they DON’T get shipped to the same central location in Europe, any economies of scale will be in the largest single markets, Great Britain and Germany.

You do understand that there is no such thing as an EU PlayStation or an EU sushi dish, don’t you?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps."

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

Economies of scale? What you saying, Japan is gonna send 100 million Playstations to one location in Europe but will only send 10 million to the UK and they’re gonna cost more? Bahahahha it’s just one silly claim after another.

Not sure if business is your thing. If the uk get 10 million and the EU get 100 million there would obiviously be manufacturing savings and shipping savings on the larger quantity, are u saying the Japanese love us so much we get the same deal ?

Lol stellar business acumen there.

In reality, Sony make country specific versions and packages, they DON’T get shipped to the same central location in Europe, any economies of scale will be in the largest single markets, Great Britain and Germany.

You do understand that there is no such thing as an EU PlayStation or an EU sushi dish, don’t you? "

It was u that brought up the 100m v 10m they can do a deal with one european distrubuter and make big savings, no internal customs or tariffs. Brexit is a pig with lipstick and has already cost me sales.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

Economies of scale? What you saying, Japan is gonna send 100 million Playstations to one location in Europe but will only send 10 million to the UK and they’re gonna cost more? Bahahahha it’s just one silly claim after another.

Not sure if business is your thing. If the uk get 10 million and the EU get 100 million there would obiviously be manufacturing savings and shipping savings on the larger quantity, are u saying the Japanese love us so much we get the same deal ?

Lol stellar business acumen there.

In reality, Sony make country specific versions and packages, they DON’T get shipped to the same central location in Europe, any economies of scale will be in the largest single markets, Great Britain and Germany.

You do understand that there is no such thing as an EU PlayStation or an EU sushi dish, don’t you?

It was u that brought up the 100m v 10m they can do a deal with one european distrubuter and make big savings, no internal customs or tariffs. Brexit is a pig with lipstick and has already cost me sales."

I wouldn't try arguing with _uliachris, have you seen some of their post? Still in the playground.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do"

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover..."

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?"

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ebjonnsonMan
over a year ago

Maldon


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

Economies of scale? What you saying, Japan is gonna send 100 million Playstations to one location in Europe but will only send 10 million to the UK and they’re gonna cost more? Bahahahha it’s just one silly claim after another.

Not sure if business is your thing. If the uk get 10 million and the EU get 100 million there would obiviously be manufacturing savings and shipping savings on the larger quantity, are u saying the Japanese love us so much we get the same deal ?

Lol stellar business acumen there.

In reality, Sony make country specific versions and packages, they DON’T get shipped to the same central location in Europe, any economies of scale will be in the largest single markets, Great Britain and Germany.

You do understand that there is no such thing as an EU PlayStation or an EU sushi dish, don’t you?

It was u that brought up the 100m v 10m they can do a deal with one european distrubuter and make big savings, no internal customs or tariffs. Brexit is a pig with lipstick and has already cost me sales."

‘Pig with lipstick’. Love it. I’m going to pinch that and use it as my own.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

Economies of scale? What you saying, Japan is gonna send 100 million Playstations to one location in Europe but will only send 10 million to the UK and they’re gonna cost more? Bahahahha it’s just one silly claim after another.

Not sure if business is your thing. If the uk get 10 million and the EU get 100 million there would obiviously be manufacturing savings and shipping savings on the larger quantity, are u saying the Japanese love us so much we get the same deal ?

Lol stellar business acumen there.

In reality, Sony make country specific versions and packages, they DON’T get shipped to the same central location in Europe, any economies of scale will be in the largest single markets, Great Britain and Germany.

You do understand that there is no such thing as an EU PlayStation or an EU sushi dish, don’t you?

It was u that brought up the 100m v 10m they can do a deal with one european distrubuter and make big savings, no internal customs or tariffs. Brexit is a pig with lipstick and has already cost me sales.

‘Pig with lipstick’. Love it. I’m going to pinch that and use it as my own."

That's mine, perhaps donkey or monkey with lipstick ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?"

Japan had to run it by Brussels??? Lol balderdash

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?"

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

Economies of scale? What you saying, Japan is gonna send 100 million Playstations to one location in Europe but will only send 10 million to the UK and they’re gonna cost more? Bahahahha it’s just one silly claim after another.

Not sure if business is your thing. If the uk get 10 million and the EU get 100 million there would obiviously be manufacturing savings and shipping savings on the larger quantity, are u saying the Japanese love us so much we get the same deal ?

Lol stellar business acumen there.

In reality, Sony make country specific versions and packages, they DON’T get shipped to the same central location in Europe, any economies of scale will be in the largest single markets, Great Britain and Germany.

You do understand that there is no such thing as an EU PlayStation or an EU sushi dish, don’t you?

It was u that brought up the 100m v 10m they can do a deal with one european distrubuter and make big savings, no internal customs or tariffs. Brexit is a pig with lipstick and has already cost me sales."

No, I asked whether you thought that was the case and clearly you did. Which I’ve shown you is nonsense piled on piffle on toast.

Just take the loss and move on to something substantial you can back up with figures.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all "

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people."

Well the man in pants seems to think we can and he's a remainer

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people."

If the deals the EU have were as amazing as you remoaners keep telling us, why would we even need bespoke deals? Lol

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

Economies of scale? What you saying, Japan is gonna send 100 million Playstations to one location in Europe but will only send 10 million to the UK and they’re gonna cost more? Bahahahha it’s just one silly claim after another.

Not sure if business is your thing. If the uk get 10 million and the EU get 100 million there would obiviously be manufacturing savings and shipping savings on the larger quantity, are u saying the Japanese love us so much we get the same deal ?

Lol stellar business acumen there.

In reality, Sony make country specific versions and packages, they DON’T get shipped to the same central location in Europe, any economies of scale will be in the largest single markets, Great Britain and Germany.

You do understand that there is no such thing as an EU PlayStation or an EU sushi dish, don’t you?

It was u that brought up the 100m v 10m they can do a deal with one european distrubuter and make big savings, no internal customs or tariffs. Brexit is a pig with lipstick and has already cost me sales.

No, I asked whether you thought that was the case and clearly you did. Which I’ve shown you is nonsense piled on piffle on toast.

Just take the loss and move on to something substantial you can back up with figures."

I'll explain it a bit slower this time, 100m to a European distributor will attract much better terms than 10m to a uk distributor.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people."

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

Economies of scale? What you saying, Japan is gonna send 100 million Playstations to one location in Europe but will only send 10 million to the UK and they’re gonna cost more? Bahahahha it’s just one silly claim after another.

Not sure if business is your thing. If the uk get 10 million and the EU get 100 million there would obiviously be manufacturing savings and shipping savings on the larger quantity, are u saying the Japanese love us so much we get the same deal ?

Lol stellar business acumen there.

In reality, Sony make country specific versions and packages, they DON’T get shipped to the same central location in Europe, any economies of scale will be in the largest single markets, Great Britain and Germany.

You do understand that there is no such thing as an EU PlayStation or an EU sushi dish, don’t you?

It was u that brought up the 100m v 10m they can do a deal with one european distrubuter and make big savings, no internal customs or tariffs. Brexit is a pig with lipstick and has already cost me sales.

No, I asked whether you thought that was the case and clearly you did. Which I’ve shown you is nonsense piled on piffle on toast.

Just take the loss and move on to something substantial you can back up with figures.

I'll explain it a bit slower this time, 100m to a European distributor will attract much better terms than 10m to a uk distributor. "

At the end of the day it all depends on the retailer to make any difference to you or I. And I can tell you for sure that electrical goods are generally more expensive on the continent

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please."

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

Economies of scale? What you saying, Japan is gonna send 100 million Playstations to one location in Europe but will only send 10 million to the UK and they’re gonna cost more? Bahahahha it’s just one silly claim after another.

Not sure if business is your thing. If the uk get 10 million and the EU get 100 million there would obiviously be manufacturing savings and shipping savings on the larger quantity, are u saying the Japanese love us so much we get the same deal ?

Lol stellar business acumen there.

In reality, Sony make country specific versions and packages, they DON’T get shipped to the same central location in Europe, any economies of scale will be in the largest single markets, Great Britain and Germany.

You do understand that there is no such thing as an EU PlayStation or an EU sushi dish, don’t you?

It was u that brought up the 100m v 10m they can do a deal with one european distrubuter and make big savings, no internal customs or tariffs. Brexit is a pig with lipstick and has already cost me sales.

No, I asked whether you thought that was the case and clearly you did. Which I’ve shown you is nonsense piled on piffle on toast.

Just take the loss and move on to something substantial you can back up with figures.

I'll explain it a bit slower this time, 100m to a European distributor will attract much better terms than 10m to a uk distributor.

At the end of the day it all depends on the retailer to make any difference to you or I. And I can tell you for sure that electrical goods are generally more expensive on the continent"

I'm beginning to see that business is not a brexiteers strong point, I'll repeat again, on average someone buying 100m of product will generally get a better deal than someone buying 10m, I'm not sure if I can explain it any simpler.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

Economies of scale? What you saying, Japan is gonna send 100 million Playstations to one location in Europe but will only send 10 million to the UK and they’re gonna cost more? Bahahahha it’s just one silly claim after another.

Not sure if business is your thing. If the uk get 10 million and the EU get 100 million there would obiviously be manufacturing savings and shipping savings on the larger quantity, are u saying the Japanese love us so much we get the same deal ?

Lol stellar business acumen there.

In reality, Sony make country specific versions and packages, they DON’T get shipped to the same central location in Europe, any economies of scale will be in the largest single markets, Great Britain and Germany.

You do understand that there is no such thing as an EU PlayStation or an EU sushi dish, don’t you?

It was u that brought up the 100m v 10m they can do a deal with one european distrubuter and make big savings, no internal customs or tariffs. Brexit is a pig with lipstick and has already cost me sales.

No, I asked whether you thought that was the case and clearly you did. Which I’ve shown you is nonsense piled on piffle on toast.

Just take the loss and move on to something substantial you can back up with figures.

I'll explain it a bit slower this time, 100m to a European distributor will attract much better terms than 10m to a uk distributor.

At the end of the day it all depends on the retailer to make any difference to you or I. And I can tell you for sure that electrical goods are generally more expensive on the continent

I'm beginning to see that business is not a brexiteers strong point, I'll repeat again, on average someone buying 100m of product will generally get a better deal than someone buying 10m, I'm not sure if I can explain it any simpler."

You’ve now been informed by several different people who know that the EU is NOT buying 100m of the same product that the UK is buying 10m of, yet you still keep saying it. Baffling really.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday."

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

Economies of scale? What you saying, Japan is gonna send 100 million Playstations to one location in Europe but will only send 10 million to the UK and they’re gonna cost more? Bahahahha it’s just one silly claim after another.

Not sure if business is your thing. If the uk get 10 million and the EU get 100 million there would obiviously be manufacturing savings and shipping savings on the larger quantity, are u saying the Japanese love us so much we get the same deal ?

Lol stellar business acumen there.

In reality, Sony make country specific versions and packages, they DON’T get shipped to the same central location in Europe, any economies of scale will be in the largest single markets, Great Britain and Germany.

You do understand that there is no such thing as an EU PlayStation or an EU sushi dish, don’t you?

It was u that brought up the 100m v 10m they can do a deal with one european distrubuter and make big savings, no internal customs or tariffs. Brexit is a pig with lipstick and has already cost me sales.

No, I asked whether you thought that was the case and clearly you did. Which I’ve shown you is nonsense piled on piffle on toast.

Just take the loss and move on to something substantial you can back up with figures.

I'll explain it a bit slower this time, 100m to a European distributor will attract much better terms than 10m to a uk distributor.

At the end of the day it all depends on the retailer to make any difference to you or I. And I can tell you for sure that electrical goods are generally more expensive on the continent

I'm beginning to see that business is not a brexiteers strong point, I'll repeat again, on average someone buying 100m of product will generally get a better deal than someone buying 10m, I'm not sure if I can explain it any simpler.

You’ve now been informed by several different people who know that the EU is NOT buying 100m of the same product that the UK is buying 10m of, yet you still keep saying it. Baffling really."

Oh dear changing the argument now chris ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

"

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

Economies of scale? What you saying, Japan is gonna send 100 million Playstations to one location in Europe but will only send 10 million to the UK and they’re gonna cost more? Bahahahha it’s just one silly claim after another.

Not sure if business is your thing. If the uk get 10 million and the EU get 100 million there would obiviously be manufacturing savings and shipping savings on the larger quantity, are u saying the Japanese love us so much we get the same deal ?

Lol stellar business acumen there.

In reality, Sony make country specific versions and packages, they DON’T get shipped to the same central location in Europe, any economies of scale will be in the largest single markets, Great Britain and Germany.

You do understand that there is no such thing as an EU PlayStation or an EU sushi dish, don’t you?

It was u that brought up the 100m v 10m they can do a deal with one european distrubuter and make big savings, no internal customs or tariffs. Brexit is a pig with lipstick and has already cost me sales.

No, I asked whether you thought that was the case and clearly you did. Which I’ve shown you is nonsense piled on piffle on toast.

Just take the loss and move on to something substantial you can back up with figures.

I'll explain it a bit slower this time, 100m to a European distributor will attract much better terms than 10m to a uk distributor.

At the end of the day it all depends on the retailer to make any difference to you or I. And I can tell you for sure that electrical goods are generally more expensive on the continent

I'm beginning to see that business is not a brexiteers strong point, I'll repeat again, on average someone buying 100m of product will generally get a better deal than someone buying 10m, I'm not sure if I can explain it any simpler.

You’ve now been informed by several different people who know that the EU is NOT buying 100m of the same product that the UK is buying 10m of, yet you still keep saying it. Baffling really.

Oh dear changing the argument now chris ? "

When you say the EU is buying these 100 million, who do you actually mean? How much would each distributor be buying?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this"

Wouldn’t hold my breath for this proof lol

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this"

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

Economies of scale? What you saying, Japan is gonna send 100 million Playstations to one location in Europe but will only send 10 million to the UK and they’re gonna cost more? Bahahahha it’s just one silly claim after another.

Not sure if business is your thing. If the uk get 10 million and the EU get 100 million there would obiviously be manufacturing savings and shipping savings on the larger quantity, are u saying the Japanese love us so much we get the same deal ?

Lol stellar business acumen there.

In reality, Sony make country specific versions and packages, they DON’T get shipped to the same central location in Europe, any economies of scale will be in the largest single markets, Great Britain and Germany.

You do understand that there is no such thing as an EU PlayStation or an EU sushi dish, don’t you?

It was u that brought up the 100m v 10m they can do a deal with one european distrubuter and make big savings, no internal customs or tariffs. Brexit is a pig with lipstick and has already cost me sales.

No, I asked whether you thought that was the case and clearly you did. Which I’ve shown you is nonsense piled on piffle on toast.

Just take the loss and move on to something substantial you can back up with figures.

I'll explain it a bit slower this time, 100m to a European distributor will attract much better terms than 10m to a uk distributor.

At the end of the day it all depends on the retailer to make any difference to you or I. And I can tell you for sure that electrical goods are generally more expensive on the continent

I'm beginning to see that business is not a brexiteers strong point, I'll repeat again, on average someone buying 100m of product will generally get a better deal than someone buying 10m, I'm not sure if I can explain it any simpler.

You’ve now been informed by several different people who know that the EU is NOT buying 100m of the same product that the UK is buying 10m of, yet you still keep saying it. Baffling really.

Oh dear changing the argument now chris ?

When you say the EU is buying these 100 million, who do you actually mean? How much would each distributor be buying? "

One.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people."

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it"

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

Why what are you, a pimp? "

What ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business."

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask"

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella. "

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

"

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy."

IQ? I think you will find it's 'THEIR'

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

IQ? I think you will find it's 'THEIR' "

I do like to throw in the occasional mistake, just keeping you on your toes.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy."

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem"

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?"

You’re absolutely crackers. Should tell you something that even the most strident remainers on the forum are ignoring your dumpster fire silly claims lol.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?"

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up"

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

You’re absolutely crackers. Should tell you something that even the most strident remainers on the forum are ignoring your dumpster fire silly claims lol."

Ah chris thought youd dissapeared after I explained why a 100m sale gets better terms than a 10m one, welcome back.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

You’re absolutely crackers. Should tell you something that even the most strident remainers on the forum are ignoring your dumpster fire silly claims lol.

Ah chris thought youd dissapeared after I explained why a 100m sale gets better terms than a 10m one, welcome back."

*Julia

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

You’re absolutely crackers. Should tell you something that even the most strident remainers on the forum are ignoring your dumpster fire silly claims lol.

Ah chris thought youd dissapeared after I explained why a 100m sale gets better terms than a 10m one, welcome back.

*Julia "

Ah, thanks for correcting me, chris is obiviously the business mastermind in your house

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer."

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April"

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April"

Presume you are referring to the ending of reductions due to covid?

in Which case it's happening here too in Hospitality!

https://www.avalara.com/vatlive/en/vat-news/2021-global-vat-rate-changes.html

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?"

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

Presume you are referring to the ending of reductions due to covid?

in Which case it's happening here too in Hospitality!

https://www.avalara.com/vatlive/en/vat-news/2021-global-vat-rate-changes.html"

I was not referring to anything

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone"

Feel free to look above, back to 20% for hospitality from 5%.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

Presume you are referring to the ending of reductions due to covid?

in Which case it's happening here too in Hospitality!

https://www.avalara.com/vatlive/en/vat-news/2021-global-vat-rate-changes.html

I was not referring to anything"

How do you know they are rising then if you are literally referring to nothing ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Feel free to look above, back to 20% for hospitality from 5%."

Thank you so much. Your intervention has just proved if a story is true its easy enough to find the proof and share

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Feel free to look above, back to 20% for hospitality from 5%.

Thank you so much. Your intervention has just proved if a story is true its easy enough to find the proof and share"

It's proved they are returning to pre covid rates, you said they were rising which is a bit disingenuous. Where did you get your evidence from? Care to share?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Feel free to look above, back to 20% for hospitality from 5%.

Thank you so much. Your intervention has just proved if a story is true its easy enough to find the proof and share

It's proved they are returning to pre covid rates, you said they were rising which is a bit disingenuous. Where did you get your evidence from? Care to share?"

I think you missed my point it waS more a demonstration of how a true story can be easily shown with facts. I plucked VAT out of the air. You quite rightly disputed that and came back with facts. In under 4 minutes to which is impressive

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Feel free to look above, back to 20% for hospitality from 5%.

Thank you so much. Your intervention has just proved if a story is true its easy enough to find the proof and share"

Leeroy all this proves is that your not very smart.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Feel free to look above, back to 20% for hospitality from 5%.

Thank you so much. Your intervention has just proved if a story is true its easy enough to find the proof and share

Leeroy all this proves is that your not very smart."

So you have the evidence now? That's great please share

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Feel free to look above, back to 20% for hospitality from 5%.

Thank you so much. Your intervention has just proved if a story is true its easy enough to find the proof and share

It's proved they are returning to pre covid rates, you said they were rising which is a bit disingenuous. Where did you get your evidence from? Care to share?

I think you missed my point it waS more a demonstration of how a true story can be easily shown with facts. I plucked VAT out of the air. You quite rightly disputed that and came back with facts. In under 4 minutes to which is impressive"

The only VAT going up in the EU/ Former EU in the month you reference is Greece on alcohol and the UK on hospitality both returning to pre-covid levels, so like you say you are talking bollock, why make crap up?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Feel free to look above, back to 20% for hospitality from 5%.

Thank you so much. Your intervention has just proved if a story is true its easy enough to find the proof and share

It's proved they are returning to pre covid rates, you said they were rising which is a bit disingenuous. Where did you get your evidence from? Care to share?

I think you missed my point it waS more a demonstration of how a true story can be easily shown with facts. I plucked VAT out of the air. You quite rightly disputed that and came back with facts. In under 4 minutes to which is impressive

The only VAT going up in the EU/ Former EU in the month you reference is Greece on alcohol and the UK on hospitality both returning to pre-covid levels, so like you say you are talking bollock, why make crap up?"

If you 're read my reply it explains the demonstration of people making things up. I totally believe what you say as you have shown it to be true

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Feel free to look above, back to 20% for hospitality from 5%.

Thank you so much. Your intervention has just proved if a story is true its easy enough to find the proof and share

It's proved they are returning to pre covid rates, you said they were rising which is a bit disingenuous. Where did you get your evidence from? Care to share?

I think you missed my point it waS more a demonstration of how a true story can be easily shown with facts. I plucked VAT out of the air. You quite rightly disputed that and came back with facts. In under 4 minutes to which is impressive

The only VAT going up in the EU/ Former EU in the month you reference is Greece on alcohol and the UK on hospitality both returning to pre-covid levels, so like you say you are talking bollock, why make crap up?

If you 're read my reply it explains the demonstration of people making things up. I totally believe what you say as you have shown it to be true"

Like most people who've been shown up leeroy will babble away in his blissfull ignorance till the thread closes, now let's here u babble Lee

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Feel free to look above, back to 20% for hospitality from 5%.

Thank you so much. Your intervention has just proved if a story is true its easy enough to find the proof and share

It's proved they are returning to pre covid rates, you said they were rising which is a bit disingenuous. Where did you get your evidence from? Care to share?

I think you missed my point it waS more a demonstration of how a true story can be easily shown with facts. I plucked VAT out of the air. You quite rightly disputed that and came back with facts. In under 4 minutes to which is impressive

The only VAT going up in the EU/ Former EU in the month you reference is Greece on alcohol and the UK on hospitality both returning to pre-covid levels, so like you say you are talking bollock, why make crap up?

If you 're read my reply it explains the demonstration of people making things up. I totally believe what you say as you have shown it to be true"

Yeah, whatever. I tell you what a lot of things were made up during 2016.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone"

Where does this fit in with your story then?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Feel free to look above, back to 20% for hospitality from 5%.

Thank you so much. Your intervention has just proved if a story is true its easy enough to find the proof and share

It's proved they are returning to pre covid rates, you said they were rising which is a bit disingenuous. Where did you get your evidence from? Care to share?

I think you missed my point it waS more a demonstration of how a true story can be easily shown with facts. I plucked VAT out of the air. You quite rightly disputed that and came back with facts. In under 4 minutes to which is impressive

The only VAT going up in the EU/ Former EU in the month you reference is Greece on alcohol and the UK on hospitality both returning to pre-covid levels, so like you say you are talking bollock, why make crap up?

If you 're read my reply it explains the demonstration of people making things up. I totally believe what you say as you have shown it to be true

Like most people who've been shown up leeroy will babble away in his blissfull ignorance till the thread closes, now let's here u babble Lee "

I've been shown up? How exactly. It was you that made the claims I simply asked for some evidence. So far you have supplied zero evidence so it is you on show for making things up and trying to deflect. Please show the evidence to what all media outlets and all politicians seemed to have missed

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Where does this fit in with your story then?"

It was part of the above demonstration.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Where does this fit in with your story then?

It was part of the above demonstration."

Whatever, great social experiment.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Where does this fit in with your story then?

It was part of the above demonstration."

Leeroy your now a proven liar but then again u supported brexit so it's not a big surprise now waffle on

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Where does this fit in with your story then?

It was part of the above demonstration.

Leeroy your now a proven liar but then again u supported brexit so it's not a big surprise now waffle on "

I done a simple demonstration to show that if you make things up you will be found out as you have. The other poster done it in under 4 mins. You have made claims but no evidence supplied despite repeated requests. Show us what everyone's missed

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Where does this fit in with your story then?

It was part of the above demonstration.

Leeroy your now a proven liar but then again u supported brexit so it's not a big surprise now waffle on

I done a simple demonstration to show that if you make things up you will be found out as you have. The other poster done it in under 4 mins. You have made claims but no evidence supplied despite repeated requests. Show us what everyone's missed"

Correction Leeroy, you lied and got caught with your pants down.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Where does this fit in with your story then?

It was part of the above demonstration.

Leeroy your now a proven liar but then again u supported brexit so it's not a big surprise now waffle on

I done a simple demonstration to show that if you make things up you will be found out as you have. The other poster done it in under 4 mins. You have made claims but no evidence supplied despite repeated requests. Show us what everyone's missed

Correction Leeroy, you lied and got caught with your pants down. "

How so? I done a simple demonstration to show you how your position looks. You make claims with no evidence so I showed how it looks when peep do that. You seem to have made this up given the lack of evidence

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Where does this fit in with your story then?

It was part of the above demonstration.

Leeroy your now a proven liar but then again u supported brexit so it's not a big surprise now waffle on

I done a simple demonstration to show that if you make things up you will be found out as you have. The other poster done it in under 4 mins. You have made claims but no evidence supplied despite repeated requests. Show us what everyone's missed

Correction Leeroy, you lied and got caught with your pants down.

How so? I done a simple demonstration to show you how your position looks. You make claims with no evidence so I showed how it looks when peep do that. You seem to have made this up given the lack of evidence"

What would have happened to your 'demostration' if VAT rates were going up in the EU in April?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Where does this fit in with your story then?

It was part of the above demonstration.

Leeroy your now a proven liar but then again u supported brexit so it's not a big surprise now waffle on

I done a simple demonstration to show that if you make things up you will be found out as you have. The other poster done it in under 4 mins. You have made claims but no evidence supplied despite repeated requests. Show us what everyone's missed

Correction Leeroy, you lied and got caught with your pants down.

How so? I done a simple demonstration to show you how your position looks. You make claims with no evidence so I showed how it looks when peep do that. You seem to have made this up given the lack of evidence

What would have happened to your 'demostration' if VAT rates were going up in the EU in April?"

As I say it was plucked out the air. However if it was true again it could be shown.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester

Just a point to discuss and I’m not claiming this as factual reality as I don’t know the true sales in each direction .

The benefit of the deal with Japan it is claimed will increase or GDP by 1.5Billion or their a-bouts.

The balance of that is agreed by the government own admission is 80-20% in the favour of the Japanese.

If they are increasing sales against us at 4 to 1 we must be buying at the same rate of 4 to 1 .

This must mean we are buying 4 times more than they are.

Doesn’t this in turn lead to increase the loss in our balance of payments.

I realise GDP isn’t just sales but the ratio stated here must reflect that to some extent.

So ultimately we turn over more but in the end lose out!!

Just a question.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Where does this fit in with your story then?

It was part of the above demonstration.

Leeroy your now a proven liar but then again u supported brexit so it's not a big surprise now waffle on

I done a simple demonstration to show that if you make things up you will be found out as you have. The other poster done it in under 4 mins. You have made claims but no evidence supplied despite repeated requests. Show us what everyone's missed

Correction Leeroy, you lied and got caught with your pants down.

How so? I done a simple demonstration to show you how your position looks. You make claims with no evidence so I showed how it looks when peep do that. You seem to have made this up given the lack of evidence

What would have happened to your 'demostration' if VAT rates were going up in the EU in April?

As I say it was plucked out the air. However if it was true again it could be shown. "

Well I did show it could be seen as true in reference to Greece. It was a pretty crap experiment I think, based on something you may have seen.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Where does this fit in with your story then?

It was part of the above demonstration.

Leeroy your now a proven liar but then again u supported brexit so it's not a big surprise now waffle on

I done a simple demonstration to show that if you make things up you will be found out as you have. The other poster done it in under 4 mins. You have made claims but no evidence supplied despite repeated requests. Show us what everyone's missed

Correction Leeroy, you lied and got caught with your pants down.

How so? I done a simple demonstration to show you how your position looks. You make claims with no evidence so I showed how it looks when peep do that. You seem to have made this up given the lack of evidence

What would have happened to your 'demostration' if VAT rates were going up in the EU in April?

As I say it was plucked out the air. However if it was true again it could be shown.

Well I did show it could be seen as true in reference to Greece. It was a pretty crap experiment I think, based on something you may have seen."

Indeed you did and very quickly too which proved my point very nicely. I do owe you an apology though in that you did not know of my demonstration. The VAT thing was just random lol

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Where does this fit in with your story then?

It was part of the above demonstration.

Leeroy your now a proven liar but then again u supported brexit so it's not a big surprise now waffle on

I done a simple demonstration to show that if you make things up you will be found out as you have. The other poster done it in under 4 mins. You have made claims but no evidence supplied despite repeated requests. Show us what everyone's missed

Correction Leeroy, you lied and got caught with your pants down.

How so? I done a simple demonstration to show you how your position looks. You make claims with no evidence so I showed how it looks when peep do that. You seem to have made this up given the lack of evidence

What would have happened to your 'demostration' if VAT rates were going up in the EU in April?

As I say it was plucked out the air. However if it was true again it could be shown.

Well I did show it could be seen as true in reference to Greece. It was a pretty crap experiment I think, based on something you may have seen.

Indeed you did and very quickly too which proved my point very nicely. I do owe you an apology though in that you did not know of my demonstration. The VAT thing was just random lol"

It's always better do a tiny bit of research leeroy, scanning a headline from the mail or express can be misleading , anyway lesson learned carry on

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just a point to discuss and I’m not claiming this as factual reality as I don’t know the true sales in each direction .

The benefit of the deal with Japan it is claimed will increase or GDP by 1.5Billion or their a-bouts.

The balance of that is agreed by the government own admission is 80-20% in the favour of the Japanese.

If they are increasing sales against us at 4 to 1 we must be buying at the same rate of 4 to 1 .

This must mean we are buying 4 times more than they are.

Doesn’t this in turn lead to increase the loss in our balance of payments.

I realise GDP isn’t just sales but the ratio stated here must reflect that to some extent.

So ultimately we turn over more but in the end lose out!!

Just a question. "

An interesting question indeed. I think I have seen the 80/20 figure here before. I guess it helps with the likes of Nissan or will do when implemented. Has anyone information on if we were still in the EU the balance would be. Would it still be 80/20 ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Where does this fit in with your story then?

It was part of the above demonstration.

Leeroy your now a proven liar but then again u supported brexit so it's not a big surprise now waffle on

I done a simple demonstration to show that if you make things up you will be found out as you have. The other poster done it in under 4 mins. You have made claims but no evidence supplied despite repeated requests. Show us what everyone's missed

Correction Leeroy, you lied and got caught with your pants down.

How so? I done a simple demonstration to show you how your position looks. You make claims with no evidence so I showed how it looks when peep do that. You seem to have made this up given the lack of evidence

What would have happened to your 'demostration' if VAT rates were going up in the EU in April?

As I say it was plucked out the air. However if it was true again it could be shown.

Well I did show it could be seen as true in reference to Greece. It was a pretty crap experiment I think, based on something you may have seen.

Indeed you did and very quickly too which proved my point very nicely. I do owe you an apology though in that you did not know of my demonstration. The VAT thing was just random lol

It's always better do a tiny bit of research leeroy, scanning a headline from the mail or express can be misleading , anyway lesson learned carry on "

Actually as mentioned to the other poster it was plucked out the air to show how your argument looks from the other side. Speaking of research I still can't find any evidence of your claim.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Where does this fit in with your story then?

It was part of the above demonstration.

Leeroy your now a proven liar but then again u supported brexit so it's not a big surprise now waffle on

I done a simple demonstration to show that if you make things up you will be found out as you have. The other poster done it in under 4 mins. You have made claims but no evidence supplied despite repeated requests. Show us what everyone's missed

Correction Leeroy, you lied and got caught with your pants down.

How so? I done a simple demonstration to show you how your position looks. You make claims with no evidence so I showed how it looks when peep do that. You seem to have made this up given the lack of evidence

What would have happened to your 'demostration' if VAT rates were going up in the EU in April?

As I say it was plucked out the air. However if it was true again it could be shown.

Well I did show it could be seen as true in reference to Greece. It was a pretty crap experiment I think, based on something you may have seen.

Indeed you did and very quickly too which proved my point very nicely. I do owe you an apology though in that you did not know of my demonstration. The VAT thing was just random lol

It's always better do a tiny bit of research leeroy, scanning a headline from the mail or express can be misleading , anyway lesson learned carry on

Actually as mentioned to the other poster it was plucked out the air to show how your argument looks from the other side. Speaking of research I still can't find any evidence of your claim. "

Plucked out of the air at least you admit being a liar.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just a point to discuss and I’m not claiming this as factual reality as I don’t know the true sales in each direction .

The benefit of the deal with Japan it is claimed will increase or GDP by 1.5Billion or their a-bouts.

The balance of that is agreed by the government own admission is 80-20% in the favour of the Japanese.

If they are increasing sales against us at 4 to 1 we must be buying at the same rate of 4 to 1 .

This must mean we are buying 4 times more than they are.

Doesn’t this in turn lead to increase the loss in our balance of payments.

I realise GDP isn’t just sales but the ratio stated here must reflect that to some extent.

So ultimately we turn over more but in the end lose out!!

Just a question.

An interesting question indeed. I think I have seen the 80/20 figure here before. I guess it helps with the likes of Nissan or will do when implemented. Has anyone information on if we were still in the EU the balance would be. Would it still be 80/20 ?"

I think it's safe to assume we'd have a much stronger hand inside the EU and wouldn't have had to rush true a cut and paste deal.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone

Where does this fit in with your story then?

It was part of the above demonstration.

Leeroy your now a proven liar but then again u supported brexit so it's not a big surprise now waffle on

I done a simple demonstration to show that if you make things up you will be found out as you have. The other poster done it in under 4 mins. You have made claims but no evidence supplied despite repeated requests. Show us what everyone's missed

Correction Leeroy, you lied and got caught with your pants down.

How so? I done a simple demonstration to show you how your position looks. You make claims with no evidence so I showed how it looks when peep do that. You seem to have made this up given the lack of evidence

What would have happened to your 'demostration' if VAT rates were going up in the EU in April?

As I say it was plucked out the air. However if it was true again it could be shown.

Well I did show it could be seen as true in reference to Greece. It was a pretty crap experiment I think, based on something you may have seen.

Indeed you did and very quickly too which proved my point very nicely. I do owe you an apology though in that you did not know of my demonstration. The VAT thing was just random lol

It's always better do a tiny bit of research leeroy, scanning a headline from the mail or express can be misleading , anyway lesson learned carry on

Actually as mentioned to the other poster it was plucked out the air to show how your argument looks from the other side. Speaking of research I still can't find any evidence of your claim.

Plucked out of the air at least you admit being a liar. "

Plucked out the air to show how your argument looks. Still waiting for the evidence to show you are not lying

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester


"Just a point to discuss and I’m not claiming this as factual reality as I don’t know the true sales in each direction .

The benefit of the deal with Japan it is claimed will increase or GDP by 1.5Billion or their a-bouts.

The balance of that is agreed by the government own admission is 80-20% in the favour of the Japanese.

If they are increasing sales against us at 4 to 1 we must be buying at the same rate of 4 to 1 .

This must mean we are buying 4 times more than they are.

Doesn’t this in turn lead to increase the loss in our balance of payments.

I realise GDP isn’t just sales but the ratio stated here must reflect that to some extent.

So ultimately we turn over more but in the end lose out!!

Just a question.

An interesting question indeed. I think I have seen the 80/20 figure here before. I guess it helps with the likes of Nissan or will do when implemented. Has anyone information on if we were still in the EU the balance would be. Would it still be 80/20 ?"

I think the 80-20 is purely the additional trade discussed so I would assume we are aiding the imports of car parts for Nissan etc.

It’s still a net loss from my point of view but if anyone knows the detail happy to be proven wrong.

Is it a political sap to please the Japanese government to get the deal and reduce Nissans concerns in the short term?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just a point to discuss and I’m not claiming this as factual reality as I don’t know the true sales in each direction .

The benefit of the deal with Japan it is claimed will increase or GDP by 1.5Billion or their a-bouts.

The balance of that is agreed by the government own admission is 80-20% in the favour of the Japanese.

If they are increasing sales against us at 4 to 1 we must be buying at the same rate of 4 to 1 .

This must mean we are buying 4 times more than they are.

Doesn’t this in turn lead to increase the loss in our balance of payments.

I realise GDP isn’t just sales but the ratio stated here must reflect that to some extent.

So ultimately we turn over more but in the end lose out!!

Just a question.

An interesting question indeed. I think I have seen the 80/20 figure here before. I guess it helps with the likes of Nissan or will do when implemented. Has anyone information on if we were still in the EU the balance would be. Would it still be 80/20 ?

I think the 80-20 is purely the additional trade discussed so I would assume we are aiding the imports of car parts for Nissan etc.

It’s still a net loss from my point of view but if anyone knows the detail happy to be proven wrong.

Is it a political sap to please the Japanese government to get the deal and reduce Nissans concerns in the short term? "

The thing i remember that was being discussed it the auto industry part was not to be phased in a few years time. Apparently it was the same as the EU version though not sure if it ended up like that

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester


"Just a point to discuss and I’m not claiming this as factual reality as I don’t know the true sales in each direction .

The benefit of the deal with Japan it is claimed will increase or GDP by 1.5Billion or their a-bouts.

The balance of that is agreed by the government own admission is 80-20% in the favour of the Japanese.

If they are increasing sales against us at 4 to 1 we must be buying at the same rate of 4 to 1 .

This must mean we are buying 4 times more than they are.

Doesn’t this in turn lead to increase the loss in our balance of payments.

I realise GDP isn’t just sales but the ratio stated here must reflect that to some extent.

So ultimately we turn over more but in the end lose out!!

Just a question.

An interesting question indeed. I think I have seen the 80/20 figure here before. I guess it helps with the likes of Nissan or will do when implemented. Has anyone information on if we were still in the EU the balance would be. Would it still be 80/20 ?

I think the 80-20 is purely the additional trade discussed so I would assume we are aiding the imports of car parts for Nissan etc.

It’s still a net loss from my point of view but if anyone knows the detail happy to be proven wrong.

Is it a political sap to please the Japanese government to get the deal and reduce Nissans concerns in the short term?

The thing i remember that was being discussed it the auto industry part was not to be phased in a few years time. Apparently it was the same as the EU version though not sure if it ended up like that"

Not 100% sure on my facts here but seem to believe we have 4 years to reduce non U.K. content regarding parts or Nissan will have tariffs imposed by EU.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just a point to discuss and I’m not claiming this as factual reality as I don’t know the true sales in each direction .

The benefit of the deal with Japan it is claimed will increase or GDP by 1.5Billion or their a-bouts.

The balance of that is agreed by the government own admission is 80-20% in the favour of the Japanese.

If they are increasing sales against us at 4 to 1 we must be buying at the same rate of 4 to 1 .

This must mean we are buying 4 times more than they are.

Doesn’t this in turn lead to increase the loss in our balance of payments.

I realise GDP isn’t just sales but the ratio stated here must reflect that to some extent.

So ultimately we turn over more but in the end lose out!!

Just a question.

An interesting question indeed. I think I have seen the 80/20 figure here before. I guess it helps with the likes of Nissan or will do when implemented. Has anyone information on if we were still in the EU the balance would be. Would it still be 80/20 ?

I think the 80-20 is purely the additional trade discussed so I would assume we are aiding the imports of car parts for Nissan etc.

It’s still a net loss from my point of view but if anyone knows the detail happy to be proven wrong.

Is it a political sap to please the Japanese government to get the deal and reduce Nissans concerns in the short term?

The thing i remember that was being discussed it the auto industry part was not to be phased in a few years time. Apparently it was the same as the EU version though not sure if it ended up like that

Not 100% sure on my facts here but seem to believe we have 4 years to reduce non U.K. content regarding parts or Nissan will have tariffs imposed by EU.

"

I don't know for sure either. In one of my previous posts on this thread was link to an article about the deal. There was something in it about Japan accept EU parts being classed as British for country of origin if they come via the UK. No real auto knowledge but have seen others on threads about Nissan where they say cars made outside Japan have localised suppliers. I bet the uncertainty has been hell for them

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester


"Just a point to discuss and I’m not claiming this as factual reality as I don’t know the true sales in each direction .

The benefit of the deal with Japan it is claimed will increase or GDP by 1.5Billion or their a-bouts.

The balance of that is agreed by the government own admission is 80-20% in the favour of the Japanese.

If they are increasing sales against us at 4 to 1 we must be buying at the same rate of 4 to 1 .

This must mean we are buying 4 times more than they are.

Doesn’t this in turn lead to increase the loss in our balance of payments.

I realise GDP isn’t just sales but the ratio stated here must reflect that to some extent.

So ultimately we turn over more but in the end lose out!!

Just a question.

An interesting question indeed. I think I have seen the 80/20 figure here before. I guess it helps with the likes of Nissan or will do when implemented. Has anyone information on if we were still in the EU the balance would be. Would it still be 80/20 ?

I think the 80-20 is purely the additional trade discussed so I would assume we are aiding the imports of car parts for Nissan etc.

It’s still a net loss from my point of view but if anyone knows the detail happy to be proven wrong.

Is it a political sap to please the Japanese government to get the deal and reduce Nissans concerns in the short term?

The thing i remember that was being discussed it the auto industry part was not to be phased in a few years time. Apparently it was the same as the EU version though not sure if it ended up like that

Not 100% sure on my facts here but seem to believe we have 4 years to reduce non U.K. content regarding parts or Nissan will have tariffs imposed by EU.

I don't know for sure either. In one of my previous posts on this thread was link to an article about the deal. There was something in it about Japan accept EU parts being classed as British for country of origin if they come via the UK. No real auto knowledge but have seen others on threads about Nissan where they say cars made outside Japan have localised suppliers. I bet the uncertainty has been hell for them"

I think Nissans plan is to increase supply locally in the U.K. but that’s a big ask to create in four years. Maybe there’s a cheat whereby the bits are brought in and then assembled into parts before being supplied to Nissan.

No idea how they measure content so if it’s value maybe it could be done with a few clever accounting procedures by the parts suppliers.

I hope they come up with something as Nissan aren’t the most financially secure car company and can’t afford to take risks.

Good luck Sunderland. Sincerely.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"Just a point to discuss and I’m not claiming this as factual reality as I don’t know the true sales in each direction .

The benefit of the deal with Japan it is claimed will increase or GDP by 1.5Billion or their a-bouts.

The balance of that is agreed by the government own admission is 80-20% in the favour of the Japanese.

If they are increasing sales against us at 4 to 1 we must be buying at the same rate of 4 to 1 .

This must mean we are buying 4 times more than they are.

Doesn’t this in turn lead to increase the loss in our balance of payments.

I realise GDP isn’t just sales but the ratio stated here must reflect that to some extent.

So ultimately we turn over more but in the end lose out!!

Just a question.

An interesting question indeed. I think I have seen the 80/20 figure here before. I guess it helps with the likes of Nissan or will do when implemented. Has anyone information on if we were still in the EU the balance would be. Would it still be 80/20 ?

I think the 80-20 is purely the additional trade discussed so I would assume we are aiding the imports of car parts for Nissan etc.

It’s still a net loss from my point of view but if anyone knows the detail happy to be proven wrong.

Is it a political sap to please the Japanese government to get the deal and reduce Nissans concerns in the short term?

The thing i remember that was being discussed it the auto industry part was not to be phased in a few years time. Apparently it was the same as the EU version though not sure if it ended up like that

Not 100% sure on my facts here but seem to believe we have 4 years to reduce non U.K. content regarding parts or Nissan will have tariffs imposed by EU.

I don't know for sure either. In one of my previous posts on this thread was link to an article about the deal. There was something in it about Japan accept EU parts being classed as British for country of origin if they come via the UK. No real auto knowledge but have seen others on threads about Nissan where they say cars made outside Japan have localised suppliers. I bet the uncertainty has been hell for them

I think Nissans plan is to increase supply locally in the U.K. but that’s a big ask to create in four years. Maybe there’s a cheat whereby the bits are brought in and then assembled into parts before being supplied to Nissan.

No idea how they measure content so if it’s value maybe it could be done with a few clever accounting procedures by the parts suppliers.

I hope they come up with something as Nissan aren’t the most financially secure car company and can’t afford to take risks.

Good luck Sunderland. Sincerely. "

Thread on Twitter by Alessandro Marongiu (at sign Tradealemaro) is worth a read - 29th Dec.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"Just a point to discuss and I’m not claiming this as factual reality as I don’t know the true sales in each direction .

The benefit of the deal with Japan it is claimed will increase or GDP by 1.5Billion or their a-bouts.

The balance of that is agreed by the government own admission is 80-20% in the favour of the Japanese.

If they are increasing sales against us at 4 to 1 we must be buying at the same rate of 4 to 1 .

This must mean we are buying 4 times more than they are.

Doesn’t this in turn lead to increase the loss in our balance of payments.

I realise GDP isn’t just sales but the ratio stated here must reflect that to some extent.

So ultimately we turn over more but in the end lose out!!

Just a question.

An interesting question indeed. I think I have seen the 80/20 figure here before. I guess it helps with the likes of Nissan or will do when implemented. Has anyone information on if we were still in the EU the balance would be. Would it still be 80/20 ?

I think the 80-20 is purely the additional trade discussed so I would assume we are aiding the imports of car parts for Nissan etc.

It’s still a net loss from my point of view but if anyone knows the detail happy to be proven wrong.

Is it a political sap to please the Japanese government to get the deal and reduce Nissans concerns in the short term?

The thing i remember that was being discussed it the auto industry part was not to be phased in a few years time. Apparently it was the same as the EU version though not sure if it ended up like that

Not 100% sure on my facts here but seem to believe we have 4 years to reduce non U.K. content regarding parts or Nissan will have tariffs imposed by EU.

I don't know for sure either. In one of my previous posts on this thread was link to an article about the deal. There was something in it about Japan accept EU parts being classed as British for country of origin if they come via the UK. No real auto knowledge but have seen others on threads about Nissan where they say cars made outside Japan have localised suppliers. I bet the uncertainty has been hell for them

I think Nissans plan is to increase supply locally in the U.K. but that’s a big ask to create in four years. Maybe there’s a cheat whereby the bits are brought in and then assembled into parts before being supplied to Nissan.

No idea how they measure content so if it’s value maybe it could be done with a few clever accounting procedures by the parts suppliers.

I hope they come up with something as Nissan aren’t the most financially secure car company and can’t afford to take risks.

Good luck Sunderland. Sincerely. "

Lol never underestimate an accountants ability to make figures do what they want. According to others the parts being made locally is quite common amongst car companies. I used to think if you bought a Japanese car then the parts were made in Japan and assembled in the UK. Seems that is not the case by a long way

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester


"Just about all of these ‘deals’ are ‘roll overs’ of what we had as an EU member. I’ve yet to see a significant fresh trade deal. And by that I mean a meaningful one.

You will. But meanwhile we trade trade on as good a terms as the EU. Which according to remainers wasn't possible

Not true if you look at the Japan UK deal.

It’s significantly under par with what we previously had.

You’re referring to the Emily Thornberry (lol) clip.

In reality, according to fullfact.org:

“The Department for International Trade (DIT) estimated the 2019 EU-Japan trade deal would add somewhere between £2.1 billion and £3.0 billion to the UK’s annual GDP after 15 years in 2017 prices, relative to a scenario where no deal was agreed. Its central estimate was £2.6 billion.

That’s around £1.1 billion higher than the GDP increase estimated as a result of the new deal.

However, the two figures can’t be simply compared.

Senior Fellow at think tank UK in a Changing Europe Dr Meredith Crowley told Full Fact the £2.6 billion benefit of the old deal is “what an economist would refer to as a ‘back of the envelope calculation’ or a ‘ballpark estimate’."

“It basically takes a 2009 study from [consultancy] Copenhagen Economics and apportions part of the EU's estimated gains from the EU-Japan [deal] to the UK in a more-or-less sensible way.

“However, it doesn't do a fully general equilibrium (CGE) analysis of the extent to which Japan's engagement with each member state of the EU will change under the [deal]. So, it's not really comparable to the more recent government study” The recent estimate is based on a CGE analysis.“

Oops remoaners once again comparing apples to oranges, big surprise.

Anyone who thinks our deal with Japan is superior to the EU Japan deal is simply deluded or d*unk.

EU a 500 million market

uk a 55 million market.

No, once again remoaners make silly claims that it’s “significantly worse” than what we had, and we’re just pointing out that’s rubbish.

Because economies of scale clearly don't exist in your world!

What you have just shown is that the UK with a market of 55 million can and did get a slightly better deal than the EU with a market of 500 million

How is it a better deal? Liz Truss couldn't identify one improvement when asked in parliament!

Notice you not claiming it to be inferior which proves my point but yes the improvement is slight like has been highlighted above by others. How is this possible given the market sizes you mention

I'm asking you to highlight it! and it has been implied it is inferior by the opposition, it was also pointed out it ties us to stricter state aid rules that the EU were asking for! How does that fit in with sovereignty?

https://www.ft.com/content/da027670-fb09-4a58-b213-bcd025f69d7c

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Fell free to post back with evidence.

https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/uk-japan-trade-deal-what-are-we-getting-exactly/649911.article

This highlights some of the advantages and some of the other differences. So whether you agree its better or just the same please tell me how this fits with the 500 to 50 million market quote

Silly boy, we are lucky the EU allowed us a roll over deal with Japan they dont want a poverty stricken uk on their doorstep but the idea we would get a better deal is laughable, with some of the quotas we get what's left over if the EU dont fill it in full, ie the scraps.

Could you explain what you mean by the EU allowed us to roll over the deal. Are you saying we needed permission?. The post shows both sides. I notice you do not mention things like country of origin and not having to apply for lower tariffs like the EU companies do

Yes Japan had to run it by Brussels , obiviously the EU dont want a basket case on their doorstep so allowed the rollover...

Can you provide proof of that statement please. I have not seen anything to even suggest that. Was it just for the Japan deal or all the other deals done as well?

The proof is in the deal zero advantage to uk . A bespoke deal would have taken years just a simple copy and past deal for the most part or maybe u know of some substantial difference ?

Is that a website? I am struggling to find it. I know its a copy and paste what I have not seen is anything to say the uk need the uk to allow a deal. If you mean the clause that the EU have in their deal about future deals with others then that's not asking permission at all

So you think it's possible to do a bespoke deal with the worlds 2nd or 3rd biggest economies in a few weeks ? Guess that's why we're now in the brexit pickle simple slogans for simple people.

Where did I say that? I was one of the ones that said its basically a copy and paste. Why Japan accepted this for a much smaller market place is interesting. Now could you please post a link about the uk,Japan deal needing EU permission please.

Use your noodle, if the uk didn't need permission why not strike a better deal, after all we were told many times brexit was going to enrich us all. P.s.let me know if that 350m arrives on monday.

You have claimed that the uk, Japan deal needed EU permission. I have asked simply that you post proof of this. From what I have read the copy and paste type deal was done for speed so it was ready in time for the end of transition. It did and does not require EU permission. Please post the proof of your claim

Can anyone please post proof that the claim the UK, Japan deal needed EU permission. Always happy to learn but cannot find evidence of this

Does everything in life need a link for u ? Why would there be a link, Sometimes a bit of independent thinking is the way to go, its obivious japan ran it by the EU and they agreed because it was just the same cut and paste deal, if the uk attempted a better deal the EU would have vetoed it, common sense to most people.

I don't often ask for a link but when a claim like that is made I would like to see evidence. If it were true it would be covered in depth and would have been a huge coup for remainders. So far no evidence what so ever. Can you at least say where you learnt of this please. I cannot see any reason for Japan to ask the EU for permission. There is nothing stopping any country using any trade deal details as a basis for their own deal.

I have asked a general question for evidence of your claim to everyone on here. So far nothing supplied but maybe someone can find it

I dont post links, and I'm not sure why your trying to suggest Japan didn't run our trade reduction deal by the EU, even adding a wig and sunlasses brexit would still be a pig and always will be it's all ready costing me lost business.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with facts. So far neither you or anyone has shown this to be fact, not one single article. So where did you learn of this?. Why would Japan need to run it by the EU? The deal does not involve them. Are you also suggesting its the same for the more than 50 trade deals the UK has done using the same technique. Just provide facts please that's all I ask

Yes that's why not a single deal has improved what we had under the EU umbrella.

So now not only Japan but over 50 countries needed to ask the EU for permission. Surely you can find evidence for at least one of them?. Again I ask for evidence or at least where you learnt of this please. Again I say the copy and paste technique was used for speed so they would be in place in time.

I can see absolutely nothing that even suggests the EU had any role in these let alone needed to give permission

What's your IQ may I ask ?

Think about this it was mostly EU trade deals that were cut and pasted because we were in a desperate situation facing year end with no deals of course the EU had to be consulted it was THERE deals we were asking to copy.

As I said before any country can use any current trade deal as the basis for a new deal. No permission is required. Again if you think it is then you will have no problem providing evidence. You have not done this. You will not even say where you learnt of this. Anyone can come up with quotes like you have. For instance I could say the EU needs to ask permission from the UK to do any future deals. I have no evidence , no links to any articles and won't even say where I learnt of it but because I said it then it must be true. Can you see the problem

No, I've explained to you so many times now that we were cut and pasting the EU deals already existing, you've admitted yourself they were copied and your trying to say the EU didn't need to be consulted ? can you provide a link saying the EU weren't consulted ?

Yes they were copy and paste I said that. Can you show anywhere that this needs permission from the EU?. It was you that claim the EU needed to give permission not me. You have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or even where you learnt of this. I can find no mention of this huge story anywhere. You made the claim so you prove it. I am thinking you have just made it up

So your saying the EU weren't consulted on their trade deals that the uk wanted to copy ? That can only make sense to a brexit believer.

How's your search for evidence going?

As said ages ago they are mostly identical in other words they form the basis of the agreement. It saves time. Otherwise if not it would be a click of the mouse and sign here please. There is nothing unusual or illegal about it so they do not need permission. Can you please back up your claims.

In other news VAT in the eurozone is increasing in April

So that's after the uk's goes up in march ?

Not seen any plans for the UK as yet so as it stands just eurozone"

Wasn’t relevant before Brexit as we didn’t pay it.

We do now! Another win

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester


"Just a point to discuss and I’m not claiming this as factual reality as I don’t know the true sales in each direction .

The benefit of the deal with Japan it is claimed will increase or GDP by 1.5Billion or their a-bouts.

The balance of that is agreed by the government own admission is 80-20% in the favour of the Japanese.

If they are increasing sales against us at 4 to 1 we must be buying at the same rate of 4 to 1 .

This must mean we are buying 4 times more than they are.

Doesn’t this in turn lead to increase the loss in our balance of payments.

I realise GDP isn’t just sales but the ratio stated here must reflect that to some extent.

So ultimately we turn over more but in the end lose out!!

Just a question.

An interesting question indeed. I think I have seen the 80/20 figure here before. I guess it helps with the likes of Nissan or will do when implemented. Has anyone information on if we were still in the EU the balance would be. Would it still be 80/20 ?

I think the 80-20 is purely the additional trade discussed so I would assume we are aiding the imports of car parts for Nissan etc.

It’s still a net loss from my point of view but if anyone knows the detail happy to be proven wrong.

Is it a political sap to please the Japanese government to get the deal and reduce Nissans concerns in the short term?

The thing i remember that was being discussed it the auto industry part was not to be phased in a few years time. Apparently it was the same as the EU version though not sure if it ended up like that

Not 100% sure on my facts here but seem to believe we have 4 years to reduce non U.K. content regarding parts or Nissan will have tariffs imposed by EU.

I don't know for sure either. In one of my previous posts on this thread was link to an article about the deal. There was something in it about Japan accept EU parts being classed as British for country of origin if they come via the UK. No real auto knowledge but have seen others on threads about Nissan where they say cars made outside Japan have localised suppliers. I bet the uncertainty has been hell for them

I think Nissans plan is to increase supply locally in the U.K. but that’s a big ask to create in four years. Maybe there’s a cheat whereby the bits are brought in and then assembled into parts before being supplied to Nissan.

No idea how they measure content so if it’s value maybe it could be done with a few clever accounting procedures by the parts suppliers.

I hope they come up with something as Nissan aren’t the most financially secure car company and can’t afford to take risks.

Good luck Sunderland. Sincerely.

Lol never underestimate an accountants ability to make figures do what they want. According to others the parts being made locally is quite common amongst car companies. I used to think if you bought a Japanese car then the parts were made in Japan and assembled in the UK. Seems that is not the case by a long way"

There are a lot of suppliers in the U.K. for Nissan . I think it’s 20-30% but has to be increased to qualify as British made.

I don’t know enough about car manufacturing to know if that’s easy or not.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just a point to discuss and I’m not claiming this as factual reality as I don’t know the true sales in each direction .

The benefit of the deal with Japan it is claimed will increase or GDP by 1.5Billion or their a-bouts.

The balance of that is agreed by the government own admission is 80-20% in the favour of the Japanese.

If they are increasing sales against us at 4 to 1 we must be buying at the same rate of 4 to 1 .

This must mean we are buying 4 times more than they are.

Doesn’t this in turn lead to increase the loss in our balance of payments.

I realise GDP isn’t just sales but the ratio stated here must reflect that to some extent.

So ultimately we turn over more but in the end lose out!!

Just a question.

An interesting question indeed. I think I have seen the 80/20 figure here before. I guess it helps with the likes of Nissan or will do when implemented. Has anyone information on if we were still in the EU the balance would be. Would it still be 80/20 ?

I think the 80-20 is purely the additional trade discussed so I would assume we are aiding the imports of car parts for Nissan etc.

It’s still a net loss from my point of view but if anyone knows the detail happy to be proven wrong.

Is it a political sap to please the Japanese government to get the deal and reduce Nissans concerns in the short term?

The thing i remember that was being discussed it the auto industry part was not to be phased in a few years time. Apparently it was the same as the EU version though not sure if it ended up like that

Not 100% sure on my facts here but seem to believe we have 4 years to reduce non U.K. content regarding parts or Nissan will have tariffs imposed by EU.

I don't know for sure either. In one of my previous posts on this thread was link to an article about the deal. There was something in it about Japan accept EU parts being classed as British for country of origin if they come via the UK. No real auto knowledge but have seen others on threads about Nissan where they say cars made outside Japan have localised suppliers. I bet the uncertainty has been hell for them

I think Nissans plan is to increase supply locally in the U.K. but that’s a big ask to create in four years. Maybe there’s a cheat whereby the bits are brought in and then assembled into parts before being supplied to Nissan.

No idea how they measure content so if it’s value maybe it could be done with a few clever accounting procedures by the parts suppliers.

I hope they come up with something as Nissan aren’t the most financially secure car company and can’t afford to take risks.

Good luck Sunderland. Sincerely.

Lol never underestimate an accountants ability to make figures do what they want. According to others the parts being made locally is quite common amongst car companies. I used to think if you bought a Japanese car then the parts were made in Japan and assembled in the UK. Seems that is not the case by a long way

There are a lot of suppliers in the U.K. for Nissan . I think it’s 20-30% but has to be increased to qualify as British made.

I don’t know enough about car manufacturing to know if that’s easy or not. "

Of course it's not easy, all the component part suppliers tender against each other, if nissan need more uk parts they will be forced to pay higher prices and I'm not sure how the competition side of things will play out, if u take something as simple as a headlight there are many individual pieces coming from all over if one supplier loses a contract to a higher priced uk company how does that play out.

Brexit is a complete pig.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester


"Just a point to discuss and I’m not claiming this as factual reality as I don’t know the true sales in each direction .

The benefit of the deal with Japan it is claimed will increase or GDP by 1.5Billion or their a-bouts.

The balance of that is agreed by the government own admission is 80-20% in the favour of the Japanese.

If they are increasing sales against us at 4 to 1 we must be buying at the same rate of 4 to 1 .

This must mean we are buying 4 times more than they are.

Doesn’t this in turn lead to increase the loss in our balance of payments.

I realise GDP isn’t just sales but the ratio stated here must reflect that to some extent.

So ultimately we turn over more but in the end lose out!!

Just a question.

An interesting question indeed. I think I have seen the 80/20 figure here before. I guess it helps with the likes of Nissan or will do when implemented. Has anyone information on if we were still in the EU the balance would be. Would it still be 80/20 ?

I think the 80-20 is purely the additional trade discussed so I would assume we are aiding the imports of car parts for Nissan etc.

It’s still a net loss from my point of view but if anyone knows the detail happy to be proven wrong.

Is it a political sap to please the Japanese government to get the deal and reduce Nissans concerns in the short term?

The thing i remember that was being discussed it the auto industry part was not to be phased in a few years time. Apparently it was the same as the EU version though not sure if it ended up like that

Not 100% sure on my facts here but seem to believe we have 4 years to reduce non U.K. content regarding parts or Nissan will have tariffs imposed by EU.

I don't know for sure either. In one of my previous posts on this thread was link to an article about the deal. There was something in it about Japan accept EU parts being classed as British for country of origin if they come via the UK. No real auto knowledge but have seen others on threads about Nissan where they say cars made outside Japan have localised suppliers. I bet the uncertainty has been hell for them

I think Nissans plan is to increase supply locally in the U.K. but that’s a big ask to create in four years. Maybe there’s a cheat whereby the bits are brought in and then assembled into parts before being supplied to Nissan.

No idea how they measure content so if it’s value maybe it could be done with a few clever accounting procedures by the parts suppliers.

I hope they come up with something as Nissan aren’t the most financially secure car company and can’t afford to take risks.

Good luck Sunderland. Sincerely.

Thread on Twitter by Alessandro Marongiu (at sign Tradealemaro) is worth a read - 29th Dec.

"

I read this. It’s starts negative saying FTA is not as good as EU membership then goes in the positives of the industry being able to adapt but it’s all added costs . The kicker is going to be the batteries.

Now I see why Tesla are investing in Germany for their battery manufacturing.

It’s a good series of points but he’s not got any really nice answers.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham


"Just a point to discuss and I’m not claiming this as factual reality as I don’t know the true sales in each direction .

The benefit of the deal with Japan it is claimed will increase or GDP by 1.5Billion or their a-bouts.

The balance of that is agreed by the government own admission is 80-20% in the favour of the Japanese.

If they are increasing sales against us at 4 to 1 we must be buying at the same rate of 4 to 1 .

This must mean we are buying 4 times more than they are.

Doesn’t this in turn lead to increase the loss in our balance of payments.

I realise GDP isn’t just sales but the ratio stated here must reflect that to some extent.

So ultimately we turn over more but in the end lose out!!

Just a question.

An interesting question indeed. I think I have seen the 80/20 figure here before. I guess it helps with the likes of Nissan or will do when implemented. Has anyone information on if we were still in the EU the balance would be. Would it still be 80/20 ?

I think the 80-20 is purely the additional trade discussed so I would assume we are aiding the imports of car parts for Nissan etc.

It’s still a net loss from my point of view but if anyone knows the detail happy to be proven wrong.

Is it a political sap to please the Japanese government to get the deal and reduce Nissans concerns in the short term?

The thing i remember that was being discussed it the auto industry part was not to be phased in a few years time. Apparently it was the same as the EU version though not sure if it ended up like that

Not 100% sure on my facts here but seem to believe we have 4 years to reduce non U.K. content regarding parts or Nissan will have tariffs imposed by EU.

I don't know for sure either. In one of my previous posts on this thread was link to an article about the deal. There was something in it about Japan accept EU parts being classed as British for country of origin if they come via the UK. No real auto knowledge but have seen others on threads about Nissan where they say cars made outside Japan have localised suppliers. I bet the uncertainty has been hell for them

I think Nissans plan is to increase supply locally in the U.K. but that’s a big ask to create in four years. Maybe there’s a cheat whereby the bits are brought in and then assembled into parts before being supplied to Nissan.

No idea how they measure content so if it’s value maybe it could be done with a few clever accounting procedures by the parts suppliers.

I hope they come up with something as Nissan aren’t the most financially secure car company and can’t afford to take risks.

Good luck Sunderland. Sincerely.

Lol never underestimate an accountants ability to make figures do what they want. According to others the parts being made locally is quite common amongst car companies. I used to think if you bought a Japanese car then the parts were made in Japan and assembled in the UK. Seems that is not the case by a long way

There are a lot of suppliers in the U.K. for Nissan . I think it’s 20-30% but has to be increased to qualify as British made.

I don’t know enough about car manufacturing to know if that’s easy or not.

Of course it's not easy, all the component part suppliers tender against each other, if nissan need more uk parts they will be forced to pay higher prices and I'm not sure how the competition side of things will play out, if u take something as simple as a headlight there are many individual pieces coming from all over if one supplier loses a contract to a higher priced uk company how does that play out.

Brexit is a complete pig."

You’re fussing about stuff as if country of origin was never a thing before Brexit, which it was for every exporting car manufacturer around the world.

Why not ask the former Peugeot workers in Coventry how Brussels helped them when their jobs were lost to France, or the former Ford transit workers in Southampton (lost to Turkey outside the EU), or the Vauxhall workers in Luton? Ellesmere Port has had the axe hanging over it for years. Being in the EU was a domesday machine for a lot of British car manufacturing.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just a point to discuss and I’m not claiming this as factual reality as I don’t know the true sales in each direction .

The benefit of the deal with Japan it is claimed will increase or GDP by 1.5Billion or their a-bouts.

The balance of that is agreed by the government own admission is 80-20% in the favour of the Japanese.

If they are increasing sales against us at 4 to 1 we must be buying at the same rate of 4 to 1 .

This must mean we are buying 4 times more than they are.

Doesn’t this in turn lead to increase the loss in our balance of payments.

I realise GDP isn’t just sales but the ratio stated here must reflect that to some extent.

So ultimately we turn over more but in the end lose out!!

Just a question.

An interesting question indeed. I think I have seen the 80/20 figure here before. I guess it helps with the likes of Nissan or will do when implemented. Has anyone information on if we were still in the EU the balance would be. Would it still be 80/20 ?

I think the 80-20 is purely the additional trade discussed so I would assume we are aiding the imports of car parts for Nissan etc.

It’s still a net loss from my point of view but if anyone knows the detail happy to be proven wrong.

Is it a political sap to please the Japanese government to get the deal and reduce Nissans concerns in the short term?

The thing i remember that was being discussed it the auto industry part was not to be phased in a few years time. Apparently it was the same as the EU version though not sure if it ended up like that

Not 100% sure on my facts here but seem to believe we have 4 years to reduce non U.K. content regarding parts or Nissan will have tariffs imposed by EU.

I don't know for sure either. In one of my previous posts on this thread was link to an article about the deal. There was something in it about Japan accept EU parts being classed as British for country of origin if they come via the UK. No real auto knowledge but have seen others on threads about Nissan where they say cars made outside Japan have localised suppliers. I bet the uncertainty has been hell for them

I think Nissans plan is to increase supply locally in the U.K. but that’s a big ask to create in four years. Maybe there’s a cheat whereby the bits are brought in and then assembled into parts before being supplied to Nissan.

No idea how they measure content so if it’s value maybe it could be done with a few clever accounting procedures by the parts suppliers.

I hope they come up with something as Nissan aren’t the most financially secure car company and can’t afford to take risks.

Good luck Sunderland. Sincerely.

Lol never underestimate an accountants ability to make figures do what they want. According to others the parts being made locally is quite common amongst car companies. I used to think if you bought a Japanese car then the parts were made in Japan and assembled in the UK. Seems that is not the case by a long way

There are a lot of suppliers in the U.K. for Nissan . I think it’s 20-30% but has to be increased to qualify as British made.

I don’t know enough about car manufacturing to know if that’s easy or not.

Of course it's not easy, all the component part suppliers tender against each other, if nissan need more uk parts they will be forced to pay higher prices and I'm not sure how the competition side of things will play out, if u take something as simple as a headlight there are many individual pieces coming from all over if one supplier loses a contract to a higher priced uk company how does that play out.

Brexit is a complete pig.

You’re fussing about stuff as if country of origin was never a thing before Brexit, which it was for every exporting car manufacturer around the world.

Why not ask the former Peugeot workers in Coventry how Brussels helped them when their jobs were lost to France, or the former Ford transit workers in Southampton (lost to Turkey outside the EU), or the Vauxhall workers in Luton? Ellesmere Port has had the axe hanging over it for years. Being in the EU was a domesday machine for a lot of British car manufacturing."

Missing the point again chris, most of our car industry is now Japanese owned and the reason they have created many thousands of jobs is because we were IN Europe, that's what they've told us.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
back to top