Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
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 |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good news although not quite there yet right? “TOKYO, March 29 (Reuters) - The 11 members of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) are expected to soon reach broad agreement with Britain on it joining the pact, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters on Wednesday.” Plus also... “We are about to learn that Britain has reached broad agreement with a group of Pacific-rim countries and will soon join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). This is according to a recent report in the FT (Britain’s bumpy ride to the Asia-Pacific). Its impact is likely to be somewhere between zero and inconsequential for most of us. The FT’s trade correspondent likens it in decibel terms to “a cat sneezing three rooms away” – and that may well be an exaggeration.“ So doesn’t sound like that big a deal really!" Chief negotiators and senior officials from member countries agreed Wednesday that Britain has met the high bar to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), four people familiar with the talks told POLITICO. Negotiations are “done” and Britain’s accession is “all agreed [and] confirmed,” said a diplomat from one member nation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good news although not quite there yet right? “TOKYO, March 29 (Reuters) - The 11 members of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) are expected to soon reach broad agreement with Britain on it joining the pact, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters on Wednesday.” Plus also... “We are about to learn that Britain has reached broad agreement with a group of Pacific-rim countries and will soon join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). This is according to a recent report in the FT (Britain’s bumpy ride to the Asia-Pacific). Its impact is likely to be somewhere between zero and inconsequential for most of us. The FT’s trade correspondent likens it in decibel terms to “a cat sneezing three rooms away” – and that may well be an exaggeration.“ So doesn’t sound like that big a deal really! Chief negotiators and senior officials from member countries agreed Wednesday that Britain has met the high bar to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), four people familiar with the talks told POLITICO. Negotiations are “done” and Britain’s accession is “all agreed [and] confirmed,” said a diplomat from one member nation. " Ok good stuff. Another article implies it could still take until July. Whatever, seems like it is happening. So what does that actually mean in terms of positive economic impact on the UK? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would post a link to the impact assessment but I can't be bothered being banned again for doing so. Our trade with cptpp member is set to increase. 65% "without" cptpp which will accelerate the growth. Thats about 37 billion by 2030. Which when accelerated will be even greater as it allows for greater market access and at a quicker pace." Sounds pretty good. Seems to contradict the views of some economists (as per quote in my first post). No idea myself as neither an economist or trade deal negotiator! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem is believing the financial times which has had its share of few embarrassments recently due to Chris Giles especially at the hands of af Neil. Sadly he's over politicised the once great paper. A reminder of the impact of this deal is that 11 nations saw it as financially beneficial to work on the agreement for over a decade. " I hear you. What just seems odd to me as layperson (in terms of international trade) is that the other 11 countries all border the Pacific rather than being on the other side of the World. Also the USA position! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“" Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. " Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant." Also interesting the view from some in NZ sounds familiar to arguments in support of Brexit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant." Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. " I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside?" I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside?" No actually most carbon footprint is in production. E.g because of the climate in newzealand they can grow vegetables better because of the ash rich soil without as much fertiliser requirements and greenhouses. Very little carbon footprint kf a vegetable or fruit is in its transport from country a- country b. Cptpp is mainly focused on services as well. Financial, insurance, legal etc recognising international certificates. Cptpp doesn't cost us a membership fee either. Which helps. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population" I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies " When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? " We won't. It's not a political and legal union  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union "Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide "We didn't vote to leave the e.c | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c "No, we voted to stay in | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in "We did. Then it ended in 1993 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993 "Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy "You want a referendum for something that no longer exists? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union "And yet... “One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Which people are indulging what were very "Trumpian" policies?" The idea that re domestication production isnt a bad idea. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“"It doesn't. Quite simply. Opponents claim x Nothing legally backs up that claim in the text | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Which people are indulging what were very "Trumpian" policies? The idea that re domestication production isnt a bad idea." Not sure I have seen anyone espouse that? What I have seen is people saying “why do we need to lose free trade (not trade per se) with the EU which is on our doorstep, and try to secure free trade with countries thousands of miles away for much the same produce?” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“
It doesn't. Quite simply. Opponents claim x
Nothing legally backs up that claim in the text
"But they lose a manner of sovereignty don’t they? In the same way the UK did as part of the EU (ie not particularly much)! Yet that was the cornerstone of the Brexit argument. Seems a bit hypocritical. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?"No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Which people are indulging what were very "Trumpian" policies? The idea that re domestication production isnt a bad idea. Not sure I have seen anyone espouse that? What I have seen is people saying “why do we need to lose free trade (not trade per se) with the EU which is on our doorstep, and try to secure free trade with countries thousands of miles away for much the same produce?”" We haven't lost free trade we have a 0 tarriff 0 quota deal with the e.u Much of what we imported from the e.u we can get for cheaper from abroad without barriers to entry e.g meat, wine etc. But also then exporting out own services and goods to without as many barriers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?
No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in "Why it's not a political pr legal union. It's an fta. Did you ask for a referendum on the tca?new zealand fta, aus fta? Did you ask fkr a referendum on any of tbe rollover deals? Or when tbe e.u signed them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?
No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in
Why it's not a political pr legal union.
It's an fta.
Did you ask for a referendum on the tca?new zealand fta, aus fta? Did you ask fkr a referendum on any of tbe rollover deals? Or when tbe e.u signed them?
"No, they were individual deals with individual countries, this is a ‘trading bloc’ with different rules, I want the ‘people to decide’ , democracy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?
No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in
Why it's not a political pr legal union.
It's an fta.
Did you ask for a referendum on the tca?new zealand fta, aus fta? Did you ask fkr a referendum on any of tbe rollover deals? Or when tbe e.u signed them?
No, they were individual deals with individual countries, this is a ‘trading bloc’ with different rules, I want the ‘people to decide’ , democracy "No. The e.u signed ftas with trading blocs too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Which people are indulging what were very "Trumpian" policies? The idea that re domestication production isnt a bad idea. Not sure I have seen anyone espouse that? What I have seen is people saying “why do we need to lose free trade (not trade per se) with the EU which is on our doorstep, and try to secure free trade with countries thousands of miles away for much the same produce?” We haven't lost free trade we have a 0 tarriff 0 quota deal with the e.u Much of what we imported from the e.u we can get for cheaper from abroad without barriers to entry e.g meat, wine etc. But also then exporting out own services and goods to without as many barriers." Except the imposition of red tape etc has resulted in a permanent 4% hit to GDP for the UK and made us less resilient and able to respond to exogenous events such as the pandemic and Ukraine war. Only Northern Ireland will have unfettered access to the EU. You said that UK trade with CPTPP members was set to grow to £30bn even without membership. So I fail to see the net benefit? The EU did not stop the UK trading internationally, it just requires us to negotiate FTAs as part of the EU trading bloc. So we could have had both! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?
No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in
Why it's not a political pr legal union.
It's an fta.
Did you ask for a referendum on the tca?new zealand fta, aus fta? Did you ask fkr a referendum on any of tbe rollover deals? Or when tbe e.u signed them?
No, they were individual deals with individual countries, this is a ‘trading bloc’ with different rules, I want the ‘people to decide’ , democracy
No. The e.u signed ftas with trading blocs too.
"When? Anyway , We are not in the EU anymore . Why don’t we sign ‘bespoke ‘ individual trade deals with individual countries ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?
No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in
Why it's not a political pr legal union.
It's an fta.
Did you ask for a referendum on the tca?new zealand fta, aus fta? Did you ask fkr a referendum on any of tbe rollover deals? Or when tbe e.u signed them?
No, they were individual deals with individual countries, this is a ‘trading bloc’ with different rules, I want the ‘people to decide’ , democracy
No. The e.u signed ftas with trading blocs too.
When? Anyway , We are not in the EU anymore . Why don’t we sign ‘bespoke ‘ individual trade deals with individual countries ? "Cariforum and a multitude of other trading blocs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?
No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in
Why it's not a political pr legal union.
It's an fta.
Did you ask for a referendum on the tca?new zealand fta, aus fta? Did you ask fkr a referendum on any of tbe rollover deals? Or when tbe e.u signed them?
No, they were individual deals with individual countries, this is a ‘trading bloc’ with different rules, I want the ‘people to decide’ , democracy
No. The e.u signed ftas with trading blocs too.
When? Anyway , We are not in the EU anymore . Why don’t we sign ‘bespoke ‘ individual trade deals with individual countries ?
Cariforum and a multitude of other trading blocs."Like I said, we are not in the EU anymore. When we join the CPTPP we should have a referendum ( in a couple of years) to decide wether we should stay in , let the ‘people decide’, democracy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are signing bespoke agreements. E.g Japan improvement, Ukraine improvement,new zealand( new) australia( new) improved Singapore, india( new agreement) canada( improved)" All these new and improved (apparently) deals and we are the worst performing G7 economy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?
No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in
Why it's not a political pr legal union.
It's an fta.
Did you ask for a referendum on the tca?new zealand fta, aus fta? Did you ask fkr a referendum on any of tbe rollover deals? Or when tbe e.u signed them?
No, they were individual deals with individual countries, this is a ‘trading bloc’ with different rules, I want the ‘people to decide’ , democracy
No. The e.u signed ftas with trading blocs too.
When? Anyway , We are not in the EU anymore . Why don’t we sign ‘bespoke ‘ individual trade deals with individual countries ?
Cariforum and a multitude of other trading blocs.
Like I said, we are not in the EU anymore. When we join the CPTPP we should have a referendum ( in a couple of years) to decide wether we should stay in , let the ‘people decide’, democracy "I'm not following your line of thinking here. This is a deal between 11 countries that removes tariffs on a wide range of goods and services, It's a free trade agreement. Why would we want or need a referendum? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?
No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in
Why it's not a political pr legal union.
It's an fta.
Did you ask for a referendum on the tca?new zealand fta, aus fta? Did you ask fkr a referendum on any of tbe rollover deals? Or when tbe e.u signed them?
No, they were individual deals with individual countries, this is a ‘trading bloc’ with different rules, I want the ‘people to decide’ , democracy
No. The e.u signed ftas with trading blocs too.
When? Anyway , We are not in the EU anymore . Why don’t we sign ‘bespoke ‘ individual trade deals with individual countries ?
Cariforum and a multitude of other trading blocs.
Like I said, we are not in the EU anymore. When we join the CPTPP we should have a referendum ( in a couple of years) to decide wether we should stay in , let the ‘people decide’, democracy "Do you want a referendum kn every trade deal? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are signing bespoke agreements. E.g Japan improvement, Ukraine improvement,new zealand( new) australia( new) improved Singapore, india( new agreement) canada( improved) All these new and improved (apparently) deals and we are the worst performing G7 economy "Actually recent data suggests we are pretty good. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are signing bespoke agreements. E.g Japan improvement, Ukraine improvement,new zealand( new) australia( new) improved Singapore, india( new agreement) canada( improved) All these new and improved (apparently) deals and we are the worst performing G7 economy
Actually recent data suggests we are pretty good."Compared to what and when? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are signing bespoke agreements. E.g Japan improvement, Ukraine improvement,new zealand( new) australia( new) improved Singapore, india( new agreement) canada( improved) All these new and improved (apparently) deals and we are the worst performing G7 economy
Actually recent data suggests we are pretty good.
Compared to what and when?"Sure. Germany had just slipped below its pre pandemic level Based on PMIS nd expectations Germany looks to be slipping into recession while the uk grows and avoids it. We should by Q1 reporting have overtaken Germany This all the while, being while the uk followed best practice on gdp calculations. While Germany Italy Japan and Canada avoided it by not adjusting their blue books. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are signing bespoke agreements. E.g Japan improvement, Ukraine improvement,new zealand( new) australia( new) improved Singapore, india( new agreement) canada( improved) All these new and improved (apparently) deals and we are the worst performing G7 economy
Actually recent data suggests we are pretty good."We are the worst performing economy in the G7 We have the highest inflation rate for 40 years We have the worst living standards for 40 years | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are signing bespoke agreements. E.g Japan improvement, Ukraine improvement,new zealand( new) australia( new) improved Singapore, india( new agreement) canada( improved) All these new and improved (apparently) deals and we are the worst performing G7 economy
Actually recent data suggests we are pretty good.
Compared to what and when?
Sure.
Germany had just slipped below its pre pandemic level
Based on PMIS nd expectations Germany looks to be slipping into recession while the uk grows and avoids it.
We should by Q1 reporting have overtaken Germany
This all the while, being while the uk followed best practice on gdp calculations. While Germany Italy Japan and Canada avoided it by not adjusting their blue books.
"Where are you getting this information from? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are signing bespoke agreements. E.g Japan improvement, Ukraine improvement,new zealand( new) australia( new) improved Singapore, india( new agreement) canada( improved) All these new and improved (apparently) deals and we are the worst performing G7 economy
Actually recent data suggests we are pretty good.
We are the worst performing economy in the G7
We have the highest inflation rate for 40 years
We have the worst living standards for 40 years "Great stuff, now can you answer my question a little further up on why you want a referendum? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?
No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in
Why it's not a political pr legal union.
It's an fta.
Did you ask for a referendum on the tca?new zealand fta, aus fta? Did you ask fkr a referendum on any of tbe rollover deals? Or when tbe e.u signed them?
No, they were individual deals with individual countries, this is a ‘trading bloc’ with different rules, I want the ‘people to decide’ , democracy
No. The e.u signed ftas with trading blocs too.
When? Anyway , We are not in the EU anymore . Why don’t we sign ‘bespoke ‘ individual trade deals with individual countries ?
Cariforum and a multitude of other trading blocs.
Like I said, we are not in the EU anymore. When we join the CPTPP we should have a referendum ( in a couple of years) to decide wether we should stay in , let the ‘people decide’, democracy
Do you want a referendum kn every trade deal?"No, only when we join a trading bloc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are signing bespoke agreements. E.g Japan improvement, Ukraine improvement,new zealand( new) australia( new) improved Singapore, india( new agreement) canada( improved) All these new and improved (apparently) deals and we are the worst performing G7 economy
Actually recent data suggests we are pretty good.
We are the worst performing economy in the G7
We have the highest inflation rate for 40 years
We have the worst living standards for 40 years
Great stuff, now can you answer my question a little further up on why you want a referendum? "Fairness and democracy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?
No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in
Why it's not a political pr legal union.
It's an fta.
Did you ask for a referendum on the tca?new zealand fta, aus fta? Did you ask fkr a referendum on any of tbe rollover deals? Or when tbe e.u signed them?
No, they were individual deals with individual countries, this is a ‘trading bloc’ with different rules, I want the ‘people to decide’ , democracy
No. The e.u signed ftas with trading blocs too.
When? Anyway , We are not in the EU anymore . Why don’t we sign ‘bespoke ‘ individual trade deals with individual countries ?
Cariforum and a multitude of other trading blocs.
Like I said, we are not in the EU anymore. When we join the CPTPP we should have a referendum ( in a couple of years) to decide wether we should stay in , let the ‘people decide’, democracy
Do you want a referendum kn every trade deal?
No, only when we join a trading bloc "A trading bloc is an fta with multiple countries. If you signed tbe same fta between all of them singularly you wouldn't have a problem seemingly you seem to dislike multiple signatories? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are signing bespoke agreements. E.g Japan improvement, Ukraine improvement,new zealand( new) australia( new) improved Singapore, india( new agreement) canada( improved) All these new and improved (apparently) deals and we are the worst performing G7 economy
Actually recent data suggests we are pretty good.
Compared to what and when?
Sure.
Germany had just slipped below its pre pandemic level
Based on PMIS nd expectations Germany looks to be slipping into recession while the uk grows and avoids it.
We should by Q1 reporting have overtaken Germany
This all the while, being while the uk followed best practice on gdp calculations. While Germany Italy Japan and Canada avoided it by not adjusting their blue books.
Where are you getting this information from? "Each countries statistical output website | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?
No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in
Why it's not a political pr legal union.
It's an fta.
Did you ask for a referendum on the tca?new zealand fta, aus fta? Did you ask fkr a referendum on any of tbe rollover deals? Or when tbe e.u signed them?
No, they were individual deals with individual countries, this is a ‘trading bloc’ with different rules, I want the ‘people to decide’ , democracy
No. The e.u signed ftas with trading blocs too.
When? Anyway , We are not in the EU anymore . Why don’t we sign ‘bespoke ‘ individual trade deals with individual countries ?
Cariforum and a multitude of other trading blocs.
Like I said, we are not in the EU anymore. When we join the CPTPP we should have a referendum ( in a couple of years) to decide wether we should stay in , let the ‘people decide’, democracy
Do you want a referendum kn every trade deal?
No, only when we join a trading bloc
A trading bloc is an fta with multiple countries. If you signed tbe same fta between all of them singularly you wouldn't have a problem seemingly you seem to dislike multiple signatories?"No, I want the people to decide, I am prepared to give it a couple of years and then we should have a referendum , democracy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are signing bespoke agreements. E.g Japan improvement, Ukraine improvement,new zealand( new) australia( new) improved Singapore, india( new agreement) canada( improved) All these new and improved (apparently) deals and we are the worst performing G7 economy
Actually recent data suggests we are pretty good.
Compared to what and when?
Sure.
Germany had just slipped below its pre pandemic level
Based on PMIS nd expectations Germany looks to be slipping into recession while the uk grows and avoids it.
We should by Q1 reporting have overtaken Germany
This all the while, being while the uk followed best practice on gdp calculations. While Germany Italy Japan and Canada avoided it by not adjusting their blue books.
Where are you getting this information from?
Each countries statistical output website "I have just checked, you’re wrong | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are signing bespoke agreements. E.g Japan improvement, Ukraine improvement,new zealand( new) australia( new) improved Singapore, india( new agreement) canada( improved) All these new and improved (apparently) deals and we are the worst performing G7 economy
Actually recent data suggests we are pretty good.
Compared to what and when?
Sure.
Germany had just slipped below its pre pandemic level
Based on PMIS nd expectations Germany looks to be slipping into recession while the uk grows and avoids it.
We should by Q1 reporting have overtaken Germany
This all the while, being while the uk followed best practice on gdp calculations. While Germany Italy Japan and Canada avoided it by not adjusting their blue books.
Where are you getting this information from?
Each countries statistical output website
I have just checked, you’re wrong "You haven't. But you tell yourself what you need to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?
No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in
Why it's not a political pr legal union.
It's an fta.
Did you ask for a referendum on the tca?new zealand fta, aus fta? Did you ask fkr a referendum on any of tbe rollover deals? Or when tbe e.u signed them?
No, they were individual deals with individual countries, this is a ‘trading bloc’ with different rules, I want the ‘people to decide’ , democracy
No. The e.u signed ftas with trading blocs too.
When? Anyway , We are not in the EU anymore . Why don’t we sign ‘bespoke ‘ individual trade deals with individual countries ?
Cariforum and a multitude of other trading blocs.
Like I said, we are not in the EU anymore. When we join the CPTPP we should have a referendum ( in a couple of years) to decide wether we should stay in , let the ‘people decide’, democracy
Do you want a referendum kn every trade deal?
No, only when we join a trading bloc
A trading bloc is an fta with multiple countries. If you signed tbe same fta between all of them singularly you wouldn't have a problem seemingly you seem to dislike multiple signatories?
No, I want the people to decide, I am prepared to give it a couple of years and then we should have a referendum , democracy "So let me get this right. Sign the same agreement with 11 countries separately you're fine with it.
Sign the same agreement on one peice of paper. You want a referendum? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are signing bespoke agreements. E.g Japan improvement, Ukraine improvement,new zealand( new) australia( new) improved Singapore, india( new agreement) canada( improved) All these new and improved (apparently) deals and we are the worst performing G7 economy
Actually recent data suggests we are pretty good.
Compared to what and when?
Sure.
Germany had just slipped below its pre pandemic level
Based on PMIS nd expectations Germany looks to be slipping into recession while the uk grows and avoids it.
We should by Q1 reporting have overtaken Germany
This all the while, being while the uk followed best practice on gdp calculations. While Germany Italy Japan and Canada avoided it by not adjusting their blue books.
Where are you getting this information from?
Each countries statistical output website
I have just checked, you’re wrong
You haven't. But you tell yourself what you need to."I have and your wrong , the UK is the worst performing economy in the G7 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are signing bespoke agreements. E.g Japan improvement, Ukraine improvement,new zealand( new) australia( new) improved Singapore, india( new agreement) canada( improved) All these new and improved (apparently) deals and we are the worst performing G7 economy
Actually recent data suggests we are pretty good.
We are the worst performing economy in the G7
We have the highest inflation rate for 40 years
We have the worst living standards for 40 years
Great stuff, now can you answer my question a little further up on why you want a referendum?
Fairness and democracy "It is a free trade deal, aimed at removing tariffs to make goods and services cheaper for the UK to export and the other countries. We can't sustain the country on domestic produce and it also doesn't stop the UK from making any other deals with any other country it wants. I'm either missing the obvious or I'm simply not following the requirement for a referendum. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are signing bespoke agreements. E.g Japan improvement, Ukraine improvement,new zealand( new) australia( new) improved Singapore, india( new agreement) canada( improved) All these new and improved (apparently) deals and we are the worst performing G7 economy
Actually recent data suggests we are pretty good.
Compared to what and when?
Sure.
Germany had just slipped below its pre pandemic level
Based on PMIS nd expectations Germany looks to be slipping into recession while the uk grows and avoids it.
We should by Q1 reporting have overtaken Germany
This all the while, being while the uk followed best practice on gdp calculations. While Germany Italy Japan and Canada avoided it by not adjusting their blue books.
Where are you getting this information from?
Each countries statistical output website
I have just checked, you’re wrong
You haven't. But you tell yourself what you need to.
I have and your wrong , the UK is the worst performing economy in the G7 "What the German statistical website? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?
No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in
Why it's not a political pr legal union.
It's an fta.
Did you ask for a referendum on the tca?new zealand fta, aus fta? Did you ask fkr a referendum on any of tbe rollover deals? Or when tbe e.u signed them?
No, they were individual deals with individual countries, this is a ‘trading bloc’ with different rules, I want the ‘people to decide’ , democracy
No. The e.u signed ftas with trading blocs too.
When? Anyway , We are not in the EU anymore . Why don’t we sign ‘bespoke ‘ individual trade deals with individual countries ?
Cariforum and a multitude of other trading blocs.
Like I said, we are not in the EU anymore. When we join the CPTPP we should have a referendum ( in a couple of years) to decide wether we should stay in , let the ‘people decide’, democracy
Do you want a referendum kn every trade deal?
No, only when we join a trading bloc
A trading bloc is an fta with multiple countries. If you signed tbe same fta between all of them singularly you wouldn't have a problem seemingly you seem to dislike multiple signatories?
No, I want the people to decide, I am prepared to give it a couple of years and then we should have a referendum , democracy
So let me get this right.
Sign the same agreement with 11 countries separately you're fine with it.
Sign the same agreement on one peice of paper. You want a referendum? "Are you suggesting that signing to the CPTPP is the same as signing individual trade deals ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are signing bespoke agreements. E.g Japan improvement, Ukraine improvement,new zealand( new) australia( new) improved Singapore, india( new agreement) canada( improved) All these new and improved (apparently) deals and we are the worst performing G7 economy
Actually recent data suggests we are pretty good.
Compared to what and when?
Sure.
Germany had just slipped below its pre pandemic level
Based on PMIS nd expectations Germany looks to be slipping into recession while the uk grows and avoids it.
We should by Q1 reporting have overtaken Germany
This all the while, being while the uk followed best practice on gdp calculations. While Germany Italy Japan and Canada avoided it by not adjusting their blue books.
Where are you getting this information from?
Each countries statistical output website
I have just checked, you’re wrong
You haven't. But you tell yourself what you need to.
I have and your wrong , the UK is the worst performing economy in the G7
What the German statistical website?"Yes, the UK are the worst performing economy in the G7 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?
No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in
Why it's not a political pr legal union.
It's an fta.
Did you ask for a referendum on the tca?new zealand fta, aus fta? Did you ask fkr a referendum on any of tbe rollover deals? Or when tbe e.u signed them?
No, they were individual deals with individual countries, this is a ‘trading bloc’ with different rules, I want the ‘people to decide’ , democracy
No. The e.u signed ftas with trading blocs too.
When? Anyway , We are not in the EU anymore . Why don’t we sign ‘bespoke ‘ individual trade deals with individual countries ?
Cariforum and a multitude of other trading blocs.
Like I said, we are not in the EU anymore. When we join the CPTPP we should have a referendum ( in a couple of years) to decide wether we should stay in , let the ‘people decide’, democracy
Do you want a referendum kn every trade deal?
No, only when we join a trading bloc
A trading bloc is an fta with multiple countries. If you signed tbe same fta between all of them singularly you wouldn't have a problem seemingly you seem to dislike multiple signatories?
No, I want the people to decide, I am prepared to give it a couple of years and then we should have a referendum , democracy
So let me get this right.
Sign the same agreement with 11 countries separately you're fine with it.
Sign the same agreement on one peice of paper. You want a referendum?
Are you suggesting that signing to the CPTPP is the same as signing individual trade deals ? "It is exactly that. Can you confirm If tbe uk signed 11 individual ftas with these coutnries you'd be happy. But if it has all 11 signatures on 1 paper. You want a referendum? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are signing bespoke agreements. E.g Japan improvement, Ukraine improvement,new zealand( new) australia( new) improved Singapore, india( new agreement) canada( improved) All these new and improved (apparently) deals and we are the worst performing G7 economy
Actually recent data suggests we are pretty good.
Compared to what and when?
Sure.
Germany had just slipped below its pre pandemic level
Based on PMIS nd expectations Germany looks to be slipping into recession while the uk grows and avoids it.
We should by Q1 reporting have overtaken Germany
This all the while, being while the uk followed best practice on gdp calculations. While Germany Italy Japan and Canada avoided it by not adjusting their blue books.
Where are you getting this information from?
Each countries statistical output website
I have just checked, you’re wrong
You haven't. But you tell yourself what you need to.
I have and your wrong , the UK is the worst performing economy in the G7
What the German statistical website?
Yes, the UK are the worst performing economy in the G7"Can you name the German statistics producer? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are signing bespoke agreements. E.g Japan improvement, Ukraine improvement,new zealand( new) australia( new) improved Singapore, india( new agreement) canada( improved) All these new and improved (apparently) deals and we are the worst performing G7 economy
Actually recent data suggests we are pretty good.
We are the worst performing economy in the G7
We have the highest inflation rate for 40 years
We have the worst living standards for 40 years
Great stuff, now can you answer my question a little further up on why you want a referendum?
Fairness and democracy
It is a free trade deal, aimed at removing tariffs to make goods and services cheaper for the UK to export and the other countries.
We can't sustain the country on domestic produce and it also doesn't stop the UK from making any other deals with any other country it wants.
I'm either missing the obvious or I'm simply not following the requirement for a referendum.
"Democracy, if it’s a great deal then it will be voted in, I am sure we can trust the British people to make the right decision | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are signing bespoke agreements. E.g Japan improvement, Ukraine improvement,new zealand( new) australia( new) improved Singapore, india( new agreement) canada( improved) All these new and improved (apparently) deals and we are the worst performing G7 economy
Actually recent data suggests we are pretty good.
Compared to what and when?
Sure.
Germany had just slipped below its pre pandemic level
Based on PMIS nd expectations Germany looks to be slipping into recession while the uk grows and avoids it.
We should by Q1 reporting have overtaken Germany
This all the while, being while the uk followed best practice on gdp calculations. While Germany Italy Japan and Canada avoided it by not adjusting their blue books.
Where are you getting this information from?
Each countries statistical output website
I have just checked, you’re wrong
You haven't. But you tell yourself what you need to.
I have and your wrong , the UK is the worst performing economy in the G7
What the German statistical website?
Yes, the UK are the worst performing economy in the G7
Can you name the German statistics producer?"No, I don’t want to get a ban, can you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?
No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in
Why it's not a political pr legal union.
It's an fta.
Did you ask for a referendum on the tca?new zealand fta, aus fta? Did you ask fkr a referendum on any of tbe rollover deals? Or when tbe e.u signed them?
No, they were individual deals with individual countries, this is a ‘trading bloc’ with different rules, I want the ‘people to decide’ , democracy
No. The e.u signed ftas with trading blocs too.
When? Anyway , We are not in the EU anymore . Why don’t we sign ‘bespoke ‘ individual trade deals with individual countries ?
Cariforum and a multitude of other trading blocs.
Like I said, we are not in the EU anymore. When we join the CPTPP we should have a referendum ( in a couple of years) to decide wether we should stay in , let the ‘people decide’, democracy
Do you want a referendum kn every trade deal?
No, only when we join a trading bloc
A trading bloc is an fta with multiple countries. If you signed tbe same fta between all of them singularly you wouldn't have a problem seemingly you seem to dislike multiple signatories?
No, I want the people to decide, I am prepared to give it a couple of years and then we should have a referendum , democracy
So let me get this right.
Sign the same agreement with 11 countries separately you're fine with it.
Sign the same agreement on one peice of paper. You want a referendum?
Are you suggesting that signing to the CPTPP is the same as signing individual trade deals ?
It is exactly that.
Can you confirm
If tbe uk signed 11 individual ftas with these coutnries you'd be happy.
But if it has all 11 signatures on 1 paper. You want a referendum?"Yes, why are we signing free trade deals with these countries? This could be detrimental to our home grown producers, let’s pick and choose the countries rather than sign up to all of them | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are signing bespoke agreements. E.g Japan improvement, Ukraine improvement,new zealand( new) australia( new) improved Singapore, india( new agreement) canada( improved) All these new and improved (apparently) deals and we are the worst performing G7 economy
Actually recent data suggests we are pretty good.
Compared to what and when?
Sure.
Germany had just slipped below its pre pandemic level
Based on PMIS nd expectations Germany looks to be slipping into recession while the uk grows and avoids it.
We should by Q1 reporting have overtaken Germany
This all the while, being while the uk followed best practice on gdp calculations. While Germany Italy Japan and Canada avoided it by not adjusting their blue books.
Where are you getting this information from?
Each countries statistical output website
I have just checked, you’re wrong
You haven't. But you tell yourself what you need to.
I have and your wrong , the UK is the worst performing economy in the G7
What the German statistical website?
Yes, the UK are the worst performing economy in the G7
Can you name the German statistics producer?
No, I don’t want to get a ban, can you "You won't get a ban you're not posting a link. Can you name it? Seemingly you can't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?
No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in
Why it's not a political pr legal union.
It's an fta.
Did you ask for a referendum on the tca?new zealand fta, aus fta? Did you ask fkr a referendum on any of tbe rollover deals? Or when tbe e.u signed them?
No, they were individual deals with individual countries, this is a ‘trading bloc’ with different rules, I want the ‘people to decide’ , democracy
No. The e.u signed ftas with trading blocs too.
When? Anyway , We are not in the EU anymore . Why don’t we sign ‘bespoke ‘ individual trade deals with individual countries ?
Cariforum and a multitude of other trading blocs.
Like I said, we are not in the EU anymore. When we join the CPTPP we should have a referendum ( in a couple of years) to decide wether we should stay in , let the ‘people decide’, democracy
Do you want a referendum kn every trade deal?
No, only when we join a trading bloc
A trading bloc is an fta with multiple countries. If you signed tbe same fta between all of them singularly you wouldn't have a problem seemingly you seem to dislike multiple signatories?
No, I want the people to decide, I am prepared to give it a couple of years and then we should have a referendum , democracy
So let me get this right.
Sign the same agreement with 11 countries separately you're fine with it.
Sign the same agreement on one peice of paper. You want a referendum?
Are you suggesting that signing to the CPTPP is the same as signing individual trade deals ?
It is exactly that.
Can you confirm
If tbe uk signed 11 individual ftas with these coutnries you'd be happy.
But if it has all 11 signatures on 1 paper. You want a referendum?
Yes, why are we signing free trade deals with these countries? This could be detrimental to our home grown producers, let’s pick and choose the countries rather than sign up to all of them "So you had no problem with the e.u affecting native producers? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?
No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in
Why it's not a political pr legal union.
It's an fta.
Did you ask for a referendum on the tca?new zealand fta, aus fta? Did you ask fkr a referendum on any of tbe rollover deals? Or when tbe e.u signed them?
No, they were individual deals with individual countries, this is a ‘trading bloc’ with different rules, I want the ‘people to decide’ , democracy
No. The e.u signed ftas with trading blocs too.
When? Anyway , We are not in the EU anymore . Why don’t we sign ‘bespoke ‘ individual trade deals with individual countries ?
Cariforum and a multitude of other trading blocs.
Like I said, we are not in the EU anymore. When we join the CPTPP we should have a referendum ( in a couple of years) to decide wether we should stay in , let the ‘people decide’, democracy
Do you want a referendum kn every trade deal?
No, only when we join a trading bloc
A trading bloc is an fta with multiple countries. If you signed tbe same fta between all of them singularly you wouldn't have a problem seemingly you seem to dislike multiple signatories?
No, I want the people to decide, I am prepared to give it a couple of years and then we should have a referendum , democracy
So let me get this right.
Sign the same agreement with 11 countries separately you're fine with it.
Sign the same agreement on one peice of paper. You want a referendum?
Are you suggesting that signing to the CPTPP is the same as signing individual trade deals ?
It is exactly that.
Can you confirm
If tbe uk signed 11 individual ftas with these coutnries you'd be happy.
But if it has all 11 signatures on 1 paper. You want a referendum?
Yes, why are we signing free trade deals with these countries? This could be detrimental to our home grown producers, let’s pick and choose the countries rather than sign up to all of them
So you had no problem with the e.u affecting native producers?
"Yes, did you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 29/03/23 17:46:51]" I did. I am not asking you to post a link. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?
No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in
Why it's not a political pr legal union.
It's an fta.
Did you ask for a referendum on the tca?new zealand fta, aus fta? Did you ask fkr a referendum on any of tbe rollover deals? Or when tbe e.u signed them?
No, they were individual deals with individual countries, this is a ‘trading bloc’ with different rules, I want the ‘people to decide’ , democracy
No. The e.u signed ftas with trading blocs too.
When? Anyway , We are not in the EU anymore . Why don’t we sign ‘bespoke ‘ individual trade deals with individual countries ?
Cariforum and a multitude of other trading blocs.
Like I said, we are not in the EU anymore. When we join the CPTPP we should have a referendum ( in a couple of years) to decide wether we should stay in , let the ‘people decide’, democracy
Do you want a referendum kn every trade deal?
No, only when we join a trading bloc
A trading bloc is an fta with multiple countries. If you signed tbe same fta between all of them singularly you wouldn't have a problem seemingly you seem to dislike multiple signatories?
No, I want the people to decide, I am prepared to give it a couple of years and then we should have a referendum , democracy
So let me get this right.
Sign the same agreement with 11 countries separately you're fine with it.
Sign the same agreement on one peice of paper. You want a referendum?
Are you suggesting that signing to the CPTPP is the same as signing individual trade deals ?
It is exactly that.
Can you confirm
If tbe uk signed 11 individual ftas with these coutnries you'd be happy.
But if it has all 11 signatures on 1 paper. You want a referendum?
Yes, why are we signing free trade deals with these countries? This could be detrimental to our home grown producers, let’s pick and choose the countries rather than sign up to all of them
So you had no problem with the e.u affecting native producers?
Yes, did you? "Yes. You had a problem with the e.u? Good to hear. What was it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
Neither was the EC in 1975, I think we should have a referendum, let ‘the people ‘ decide
We didn't vote to leave the e.c
No, we voted to stay in
We did.
Then it ended in 1993
Exactly, time for a referendum, let the ‘people decide ‘, democracy
You want a referendum for something that no longer exists?
No, when we join the CPTPP I want a referendum in 2 years to decide (whether or not) we stay in
Why it's not a political pr legal union.
It's an fta.
Did you ask for a referendum on the tca?new zealand fta, aus fta? Did you ask fkr a referendum on any of tbe rollover deals? Or when tbe e.u signed them?
No, they were individual deals with individual countries, this is a ‘trading bloc’ with different rules, I want the ‘people to decide’ , democracy
No. The e.u signed ftas with trading blocs too.
When? Anyway , We are not in the EU anymore . Why don’t we sign ‘bespoke ‘ individual trade deals with individual countries ?
Cariforum and a multitude of other trading blocs.
Like I said, we are not in the EU anymore. When we join the CPTPP we should have a referendum ( in a couple of years) to decide wether we should stay in , let the ‘people decide’, democracy
Do you want a referendum kn every trade deal?
No, only when we join a trading bloc
A trading bloc is an fta with multiple countries. If you signed tbe same fta between all of them singularly you wouldn't have a problem seemingly you seem to dislike multiple signatories?
No, I want the people to decide, I am prepared to give it a couple of years and then we should have a referendum , democracy
So let me get this right.
Sign the same agreement with 11 countries separately you're fine with it.
Sign the same agreement on one peice of paper. You want a referendum?
Are you suggesting that signing to the CPTPP is the same as signing individual trade deals ?
It is exactly that.
Can you confirm
If tbe uk signed 11 individual ftas with these coutnries you'd be happy.
But if it has all 11 signatures on 1 paper. You want a referendum?
Yes, why are we signing free trade deals with these countries? This could be detrimental to our home grown producers, let’s pick and choose the countries rather than sign up to all of them
So you had no problem with the e.u affecting native producers?
Yes, did you?
Yes. You had a problem with the e.u? Good to hear. What was it?"The positives of the EU far outweighed the negatives, anyway we are no longer in the EU | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead. "Taken me by surprise with this. I was looking on and off but last I read was there was a sticking point mainly with Canada. It seemed quite serious so good to hear that got sorted. For the future, assuming this goes ahead will the UK have a say in any future countries joining or is that reserved for the founding members? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Taken me by surprise with this. I was looking on and off but last I read was there was a sticking point mainly with Canada. It seemed quite serious so good to hear that got sorted. For the future, assuming this goes ahead will the UK have a say in any future countries joining or is that reserved for the founding members?"Yeah Canadas issue was us nort accepting hormone injected cattle. As the e.u had banned it ( having admitted no other reason than "cus") and its still in our laws..."cus" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Taken me by surprise with this. I was looking on and off but last I read was there was a sticking point mainly with Canada. It seemed quite serious so good to hear that got sorted. For the future, assuming this goes ahead will the UK have a say in any future countries joining or is that reserved for the founding members?
Yeah Canadas issue was us nort accepting hormone injected cattle. As the e.u had banned it ( having admitted no other reason than "cus") and its still in our laws..."cus" "So it’s ok to have hormone injected beef then? Sounds icky to me! Part of the reason the effectiveness of antibiotics has reduced is due to them being used in cattle and sheep and thus into humans via the food chain. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Taken me by surprise with this. I was looking on and off but last I read was there was a sticking point mainly with Canada. It seemed quite serious so good to hear that got sorted. For the future, assuming this goes ahead will the UK have a say in any future countries joining or is that reserved for the founding members?
Yeah Canadas issue was us nort accepting hormone injected cattle. As the e.u had banned it ( having admitted no other reason than "cus") and its still in our laws..."cus"
So it’s ok to have hormone injected beef then? Sounds icky to me! Part of the reason the effectiveness of antibiotics has reduced is due to them being used in cattle and sheep and thus into humans via the food chain."Personally doesn't bother me. Hormones would make them grow quicker.and have less need for antibiotics long term. I get your points. Essentially if you're growing a cow for slaughter and it take 2 years. To get to a size for slau ghter. You could get it there in half the time with Hormones. Or if you grw it for 2 years and I jetted it with beef you'd get more meat out kf it by making its muscle growth more efficient. On each of those your need fkr antibiotics goes down as you either have less cows needed( and thus less likely to need antibiotic) or you get tbe meat quicker and thus kill the cow in 1 year instead of 2 thus reducing the need for anti biotics. I'm not too fussed on it myself u understand people's concern. I was merely pointing out the e u simply decided without debate to ban it and we've brought it over in our laws. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Taken me by surprise with this. I was looking on and off but last I read was there was a sticking point mainly with Canada. It seemed quite serious so good to hear that got sorted. For the future, assuming this goes ahead will the UK have a say in any future countries joining or is that reserved for the founding members?
Yeah Canadas issue was us nort accepting hormone injected cattle. As the e.u had banned it ( having admitted no other reason than "cus") and its still in our laws..."cus" "Thanks for the answers Sorry I am not understanding the final outcome of the cattle. Is the result that Canada can export hormone injected meat or that they can't. I recall a similar situation with Australia but believe it was your good self that showed on here that Australia can't send such produce in the end. Apologies if I have you mixed up with someone else | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Taken me by surprise with this. I was looking on and off but last I read was there was a sticking point mainly with Canada. It seemed quite serious so good to hear that got sorted. For the future, assuming this goes ahead will the UK have a say in any future countries joining or is that reserved for the founding members?
Yeah Canadas issue was us nort accepting hormone injected cattle. As the e.u had banned it ( having admitted no other reason than "cus") and its still in our laws..."cus"
Thanks for the answers
Sorry I am not understanding the final outcome of the cattle. Is the result that Canada can export hormone injected meat or that they can't. I recall a similar situation with Australia but believe it was your good self that showed on here that Australia can't send such produce in the end. Apologies if I have you mixed up with someone else"No we've appeased them somewhere else. Not sure where. Maybe something in our own trade deal with them or something else in cptpp. No hormone related beef etc coming to the UK. No it was me. The uk has approved producers and suppliers in each country who comply to our standards for export. No country can export lower standards to us without breaching our agreements. The only countries that can do this are the 40 lowest rankes countries in tbe world who we allowed to do this to improve their income ( we also did this while in the e.u) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“"It would be peak Brexit shit-housery for our imbecilic Government to sign us up to something that would replace the anti-federecy claim of an EU that they hated, but which benefitted us greatly with a federally inspired Pacific rim agreement that would be objectively meaningless in reality. Stupid cunts | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“
It would be peak Brexit shit-housery for our imbecilic Government to sign us up to something that would replace the anti-federecy claim of an EU that they hated, but which benefitted us greatly with a federally inspired Pacific rim agreement that would be objectively meaningless in reality.
Stupid cunts"Yeah. That's bnot what cptpp is it's a free trade agreement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“
It would be peak Brexit shit-housery for our imbecilic Government to sign us up to something that would replace the anti-federecy claim of an EU that they hated, but which benefitted us greatly with a federally inspired Pacific rim agreement that would be objectively meaningless in reality.
Stupid cunts"2 things I would love to understand further from your post. 1) The people of the UK chose to leave the EU, do you respect that decision? 2) What does your post actually mean, it is a lot of words but it seems nothing more than a rant, can you reword it too something I can understand, ie other people can get onboard with | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead. "Personally I am pleased by this, as I have stated on the forum previously my company does far more business in that part of the world than Europe so it hopefully will help us even more, exiting times to be joining such a large and rapidly expanding market. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Personally I am pleased by this, as I have stated on the forum previously my company does far more business in that part of the world than Europe so it hopefully will help us even more, exiting times to be joining such a large and rapidly expanding market. "Good news, what do you manufacture? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Personally I am pleased by this, as I have stated on the forum previously my company does far more business in that part of the world than Europe so it hopefully will help us even more, exiting times to be joining such a large and rapidly expanding market. "Machine parts and/or ball bearings I seem to recall? But _orleyman said trade with the region covered by CPTPP was expected to reach £30bn by 2030 without UK membership of CPTPP. So we could have had that AND remained in the EU! Are there now any projected growth figures above that £30bn? Does it offset the loses to the economy caused by Brexit? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Personally I am pleased by this, as I have stated on the forum previously my company does far more business in that part of the world than Europe so it hopefully will help us even more, exiting times to be joining such a large and rapidly expanding market.
Machine parts and/or ball bearings I seem to recall?
But _orleyman said trade with the region covered by CPTPP was expected to reach £30bn by 2030 without UK membership of CPTPP. So we could have had that AND remained in the EU! Are there now any projected growth figures above that £30bn? Does it offset the loses to the economy caused by Brexit?"We manufacture a variety of bearings for various different sectors ranging from from small stuff like you find in a washing machine to very large bearings used in mining applications or marine applications for instance. We also manufacture bespoke housings and sealing solutions as per a customers requirements. As for the rest of your post, I did not vote to leave, although as I have stated many times brexit made virtually no difference to my company at all. No idea about the 30 billion figure you have quoted and am a little busy at the minute to look these figures up to be fair, but am sure you are correct. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Personally I am pleased by this, as I have stated on the forum previously my company does far more business in that part of the world than Europe so it hopefully will help us even more, exiting times to be joining such a large and rapidly expanding market.
Machine parts and/or ball bearings I seem to recall?
But _orleyman said trade with the region covered by CPTPP was expected to reach £30bn by 2030 without UK membership of CPTPP. So we could have had that AND remained in the EU! Are there now any projected growth figures above that £30bn? Does it offset the loses to the economy caused by Brexit?"We can have more trade with them though as that trade will grow at a greater rate as that part of the world is growing quicker. The losses are pretty hard to judge but given Germany is now behind the uk in it'd recovery from pandemic I think brexit growth losses are overstated. There is some impact especially early on with the drip inninports and exports fmto and from e.u in 2020 and 2021. The main impact being equivalency not being given which bow looks to be over with the window framework after e.u reneged. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Taken me by surprise with this. I was looking on and off but last I read was there was a sticking point mainly with Canada. It seemed quite serious so good to hear that got sorted. For the future, assuming this goes ahead will the UK have a say in any future countries joining or is that reserved for the founding members?
Yeah Canadas issue was us nort accepting hormone injected cattle. As the e.u had banned it ( having admitted no other reason than "cus") and its still in our laws..."cus"
Thanks for the answers
Sorry I am not understanding the final outcome of the cattle. Is the result that Canada can export hormone injected meat or that they can't. I recall a similar situation with Australia but believe it was your good self that showed on here that Australia can't send such produce in the end. Apologies if I have you mixed up with someone else
No we've appeased them somewhere else. Not sure where. Maybe something in our own trade deal with them or something else in cptpp. No hormone related beef etc coming to the UK.
No it was me. The uk has approved producers and suppliers in each country who comply to our standards for export.
No country can export lower standards to us without breaching our agreements.
The only countries that can do this are the 40 lowest rankes countries in tbe world who we allowed to do this to improve their income ( we also did this while in the e.u)"Thanks again. I did find an article from politico and at the end where they talk about the issue with Canada, they say that Canada has agreed to not hold up UK accession over this and will do one to one talks at a latter date instead. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead. "Why would it be the final nail in the coffin of rejoin? Once we get adults back in Downing Street and the country can start to have grown up conversations about what is going on in the world, the UK could, if it wanted to leave the CPTPP. Not sure why it is a nail in a coffin. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Why would it be the final nail in the coffin of rejoin?
Once we get adults back in Downing Street and the country can start to have grown up conversations about what is going on in the world, the UK could, if it wanted to leave the CPTPP.
Not sure why it is a nail in a coffin."Because you can't be a member of both. The total year it would take to withdraw from cptpp and then rejoin e.u would make it impossible. The uk would then have to meet e.u joining criteria and accept the euro. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why would it be the final nail in the coffin of rejoin? Once we get adults back in Downing Street and the country can start to have grown up conversations about what is going on in the world, the UK could, if it wanted to leave the CPTPP. Not sure why it is a nail in a coffin. Because you can't be a member of both. The total year it would take to withdraw from cptpp and then rejoin e.u would make it impossible. The uk would then have to meet e.u joining criteria and accept the euro. " There is just a six-month notice period required to leave the CPTPP. It's hardly complex. Pushing the UK further away from European alignment will be seen in the near future as being economically illiterate. If being in a large trading bloc is beneficial - there is little point in driving as far away, as fast as possible from the one that is geographically closest to you. Kemi Bradendoch got herself twisted in knots this morning trying to explain just this very thing. As for the Euro - bring it on I say. What a complete PITA it has been for years trying to deal with variable exchange rates. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why would it be the final nail in the coffin of rejoin? Once we get adults back in Downing Street and the country can start to have grown up conversations about what is going on in the world, the UK could, if it wanted to leave the CPTPP. Not sure why it is a nail in a coffin. Because you can't be a member of both. The total year it would take to withdraw from cptpp and then rejoin e.u would make it impossible. The uk would then have to meet e.u joining criteria and accept the euro. There is just a six-month notice period required to leave the CPTPP. It's hardly complex. Pushing the UK further away from European alignment will be seen in the near future as being economically illiterate. If being in a large trading bloc is beneficial - there is little point in driving as far away, as fast as possible from the one that is geographically closest to you. Kemi Bradendoch got herself twisted in knots this morning trying to explain just this very thing. As for the Euro - bring it on I say. What a complete PITA it has been for years trying to deal with variable exchange rates." Why is re aligning yourself with a growing and bigger market illiterate? The e.u isn't a trading bloc. It's a political union. If you think having a harmonised currency is just getting rid of exchange rates I think ylubshould ask tbenitslians and Greeks how they feel about government debt, mo entry expansion and bonds buying, maybe re visit black Wednesday? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Personally I am pleased by this, as I have stated on the forum previously my company does far more business in that part of the world than Europe so it hopefully will help us even more, exiting times to be joining such a large and rapidly expanding market.
Machine parts and/or ball bearings I seem to recall?
But _orleyman said trade with the region covered by CPTPP was expected to reach £30bn by 2030 without UK membership of CPTPP. So we could have had that AND remained in the EU! Are there now any projected growth figures above that £30bn? Does it offset the loses to the economy caused by Brexit?
We can have more trade with them though as that trade will grow at a greater rate as that part of the world is growing quicker.
The losses are pretty hard to judge but given Germany is now behind the uk in it'd recovery from pandemic I think brexit growth losses are overstated.
There is some impact especially early on with the drip inninports and exports fmto and from e.u in 2020 and 2021.
The main impact being equivalency not being given which bow looks to be over with the window framework after e.u reneged.
"A few things on your post: 1. The current accepted impact of leaving the EU is a permanent (ie every year forever) loss of 4% to UK GDP. Until another almost universally accepted measure replaces that, then that is the figure we need to quote. 2. Germany’s post pandemic recovery is now slower than the UK (I will need to look that up bu sure you are correct) but as you know a % growth or loss is meaningless unless you know the baseline. Due to the impact of Brexit, the UK baseline was already worse so our recovery has further to go regardless of how fast we get there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Personally I am pleased by this, as I have stated on the forum previously my company does far more business in that part of the world than Europe so it hopefully will help us even more, exiting times to be joining such a large and rapidly expanding market.
Machine parts and/or ball bearings I seem to recall?
But _orleyman said trade with the region covered by CPTPP was expected to reach £30bn by 2030 without UK membership of CPTPP. So we could have had that AND remained in the EU! Are there now any projected growth figures above that £30bn? Does it offset the loses to the economy caused by Brexit?
We can have more trade with them though as that trade will grow at a greater rate as that part of the world is growing quicker.
The losses are pretty hard to judge but given Germany is now behind the uk in it'd recovery from pandemic I think brexit growth losses are overstated.
There is some impact especially early on with the drip inninports and exports fmto and from e.u in 2020 and 2021.
The main impact being equivalency not being given which bow looks to be over with the window framework after e.u reneged.
A few things on your post:
1. The current accepted impact of leaving the EU is a permanent (ie every year forever) loss of 4% to UK GDP. Until another almost universally accepted measure replaces that, then that is the figure we need to quote.
2. Germany’s post pandemic recovery is now slower than the UK (I will need to look that up bu sure you are correct) but as you know a % growth or loss is meaningless unless you know the baseline. Due to the impact of Brexit, the UK baseline was already worse so our recovery has further to go regardless of how fast we get there. "Actually it's not. Have you read the obr report. I believe I asked people in this forum last time and bo one had. It was an estimation for tbe obr based on several forecasts kn long run expectation on where they saw the uk economy in 15 years( growth) out side vs inside e.u The 4% literally can bot be realised until 2035. It takes into account no other trade deals. Just that the uk traded with the e.u on tca terms with bo equivalence giving for the services. (equivalence now given) The 4% was a mixture of impact assessments from BofE, Nieser,IMF,uk changing Europe and others. They ranged from 1.8% to 10% The 4% is an average estimate not a crystalised relisation of monetary value. The uk base line was mainly affected by 2 things. In 2019 we adjusted our measuring of gdp in line with oecd requirements for transparency and comparability. No other g7 nations has done this. The effect being when education and health shut down in 2020 the inapct was much bigger. ( no other g7 country reports to the requested stnadards) In June 2022 the uk performed a blue book revision. Every year to strip out inflation in gdp numbers the uk puts in a deflator. The uk had originally recovered by the old deflator in November 2021 We changed this ( again at oecd request) so did France and America. Other coutnries have bot done it they are misreporting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Personally I am pleased by this, as I have stated on the forum previously my company does far more business in that part of the world than Europe so it hopefully will help us even more, exiting times to be joining such a large and rapidly expanding market.
Machine parts and/or ball bearings I seem to recall?
But _orleyman said trade with the region covered by CPTPP was expected to reach £30bn by 2030 without UK membership of CPTPP. So we could have had that AND remained in the EU! Are there now any projected growth figures above that £30bn? Does it offset the loses to the economy caused by Brexit?
We can have more trade with them though as that trade will grow at a greater rate as that part of the world is growing quicker.
The losses are pretty hard to judge but given Germany is now behind the uk in it'd recovery from pandemic I think brexit growth losses are overstated.
There is some impact especially early on with the drip inninports and exports fmto and from e.u in 2020 and 2021.
The main impact being equivalency not being given which bow looks to be over with the window framework after e.u reneged.
A few things on your post:
1. The current accepted impact of leaving the EU is a permanent (ie every year forever) loss of 4% to UK GDP. Until another almost universally accepted measure replaces that, then that is the figure we need to quote.
2. Germany’s post pandemic recovery is now slower than the UK (I will need to look that up bu sure you are correct) but as you know a % growth or loss is meaningless unless you know the baseline. Due to the impact of Brexit, the UK baseline was already worse so our recovery has further to go regardless of how fast we get there.
Actually it's not. Have you read the obr report. I believe I asked people in this forum last time and bo one had.
It was an estimation for tbe obr based on several forecasts kn long run expectation on where they saw the uk economy in 15 years( growth) out side vs inside e.u
The 4% literally can bot be realised until 2035. It takes into account no other trade deals. Just that the uk traded with the e.u on tca terms with bo equivalence giving for the services.
(equivalence now given)
The 4% was a mixture of impact assessments from BofE, Nieser,IMF,uk changing Europe and others. They ranged from 1.8% to 10%
The 4% is an average estimate not a crystalised relisation of monetary value.
The uk base line was mainly affected by 2 things.
In 2019 we adjusted our measuring of gdp in line with oecd requirements for transparency and comparability.
No other g7 nations has done this. The effect being when education and health shut down in 2020 the inapct was much bigger. ( no other g7 country reports to the requested stnadards)
In June 2022 the uk performed a blue book revision. Every year to strip out inflation in gdp numbers the uk puts in a deflator.
The uk had originally recovered by the old deflator in November 2021
We changed this ( again at oecd request) so did France and America.
Other coutnries have bot done it they are misreporting. "So in layperson terms we have no idea about economic benefits because they are only forecasts and no idea about comparative GDP performance because all countries measure differently meaning we are comparing apples with pears? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Personally I am pleased by this, as I have stated on the forum previously my company does far more business in that part of the world than Europe so it hopefully will help us even more, exiting times to be joining such a large and rapidly expanding market.
Machine parts and/or ball bearings I seem to recall?
But _orleyman said trade with the region covered by CPTPP was expected to reach £30bn by 2030 without UK membership of CPTPP. So we could have had that AND remained in the EU! Are there now any projected growth figures above that £30bn? Does it offset the loses to the economy caused by Brexit?
We can have more trade with them though as that trade will grow at a greater rate as that part of the world is growing quicker.
The losses are pretty hard to judge but given Germany is now behind the uk in it'd recovery from pandemic I think brexit growth losses are overstated.
There is some impact especially early on with the drip inninports and exports fmto and from e.u in 2020 and 2021.
The main impact being equivalency not being given which bow looks to be over with the window framework after e.u reneged.
A few things on your post:
1. The current accepted impact of leaving the EU is a permanent (ie every year forever) loss of 4% to UK GDP. Until another almost universally accepted measure replaces that, then that is the figure we need to quote.
2. Germany’s post pandemic recovery is now slower than the UK (I will need to look that up bu sure you are correct) but as you know a % growth or loss is meaningless unless you know the baseline. Due to the impact of Brexit, the UK baseline was already worse so our recovery has further to go regardless of how fast we get there.
Actually it's not. Have you read the obr report. I believe I asked people in this forum last time and bo one had.
It was an estimation for tbe obr based on several forecasts kn long run expectation on where they saw the uk economy in 15 years( growth) out side vs inside e.u
The 4% literally can bot be realised until 2035. It takes into account no other trade deals. Just that the uk traded with the e.u on tca terms with bo equivalence giving for the services.
(equivalence now given)
The 4% was a mixture of impact assessments from BofE, Nieser,IMF,uk changing Europe and others. They ranged from 1.8% to 10%
The 4% is an average estimate not a crystalised relisation of monetary value.
The uk base line was mainly affected by 2 things.
In 2019 we adjusted our measuring of gdp in line with oecd requirements for transparency and comparability.
No other g7 nations has done this. The effect being when education and health shut down in 2020 the inapct was much bigger. ( no other g7 country reports to the requested stnadards)
In June 2022 the uk performed a blue book revision. Every year to strip out inflation in gdp numbers the uk puts in a deflator.
The uk had originally recovered by the old deflator in November 2021
We changed this ( again at oecd request) so did France and America.
Other coutnries have bot done it they are misreporting.
So in layperson terms we have no idea about economic benefits because they are only forecasts and no idea about comparative GDP performance because all countries measure differently meaning we are comparing apples with pears?"In a word yes. The uk has the most reliable measure. We know France and USA followed one of the guidances. We know in the old guidance thebuk recovered in November 2021 and then had a year of growth. Whereas Germany using old guidance ( that over inflates)still has not recovered. Italy has barely recovered( again old guidance) So I am not sure why any failure to recover post pandemic is being blamed on brexit. When Italy and Germany are seeing the same thing. There will ofcourse be an impact but seemingly the uk has weathered it Gdp measures will always be difficult this is why the oecd asked countries to unify their measures. But some have outright refused to ( probably because it means very bad news) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Personally I am pleased by this, as I have stated on the forum previously my company does far more business in that part of the world than Europe so it hopefully will help us even more, exiting times to be joining such a large and rapidly expanding market.
Machine parts and/or ball bearings I seem to recall?
But _orleyman said trade with the region covered by CPTPP was expected to reach £30bn by 2030 without UK membership of CPTPP. So we could have had that AND remained in the EU! Are there now any projected growth figures above that £30bn? Does it offset the loses to the economy caused by Brexit?
We can have more trade with them though as that trade will grow at a greater rate as that part of the world is growing quicker.
The losses are pretty hard to judge but given Germany is now behind the uk in it'd recovery from pandemic I think brexit growth losses are overstated.
There is some impact especially early on with the drip inninports and exports fmto and from e.u in 2020 and 2021.
The main impact being equivalency not being given which bow looks to be over with the window framework after e.u reneged.
A few things on your post:
1. The current accepted impact of leaving the EU is a permanent (ie every year forever) loss of 4% to UK GDP. Until another almost universally accepted measure replaces that, then that is the figure we need to quote.
2. Germany’s post pandemic recovery is now slower than the UK (I will need to look that up bu sure you are correct) but as you know a % growth or loss is meaningless unless you know the baseline. Due to the impact of Brexit, the UK baseline was already worse so our recovery has further to go regardless of how fast we get there.
Actually it's not. Have you read the obr report. I believe I asked people in this forum last time and bo one had.
It was an estimation for tbe obr based on several forecasts kn long run expectation on where they saw the uk economy in 15 years( growth) out side vs inside e.u
The 4% literally can bot be realised until 2035. It takes into account no other trade deals. Just that the uk traded with the e.u on tca terms with bo equivalence giving for the services.
(equivalence now given)
The 4% was a mixture of impact assessments from BofE, Nieser,IMF,uk changing Europe and others. They ranged from 1.8% to 10%
The 4% is an average estimate not a crystalised relisation of monetary value.
The uk base line was mainly affected by 2 things.
In 2019 we adjusted our measuring of gdp in line with oecd requirements for transparency and comparability.
No other g7 nations has done this. The effect being when education and health shut down in 2020 the inapct was much bigger. ( no other g7 country reports to the requested stnadards)
In June 2022 the uk performed a blue book revision. Every year to strip out inflation in gdp numbers the uk puts in a deflator.
The uk had originally recovered by the old deflator in November 2021
We changed this ( again at oecd request) so did France and America.
Other coutnries have bot done it they are misreporting.
So in layperson terms we have no idea about economic benefits because they are only forecasts and no idea about comparative GDP performance because all countries measure differently meaning we are comparing apples with pears?
In a word yes.
The uk has the most reliable measure.
We know France and USA followed one of the guidances.
We know in the old guidance thebuk recovered in November 2021 and then had a year of growth. Whereas Germany using old guidance ( that over inflates)still has not recovered. Italy has barely recovered( again old guidance)
So I am not sure why any failure to recover post pandemic is being blamed on brexit. When Italy and Germany are seeing the same thing.
There will ofcourse be an impact but seemingly the uk has weathered it
Gdp measures will always be difficult this is why the oecd asked countries to unify their measures. But some have outright refused to ( probably because it means very bad news)"In which case this whole thread is completely moot and we may as well stop talking about economic benefits or losses altogether  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The thread started because a poster said to come back when new zealanda Australia and cptpp were actually happening as they didn't believe they would. They are. " But as we cannot establish the positive impact, it has all been for nought! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very interesting that the OPs very clever houses of cards about the zero effect of Brexit and the enormously positive effect of the CPTPP have not been constructed and published by anybody else anywhere. They have been extrapolated from deeply buried reports so all of the data is, apparently there to see, but nobody else has. Nobody else put these clues together. Certainly nobody has published them. Not any of the Brexit supporting papers, Brexit supporting "think tanks" and economists. There have been absolutely no negative economic consequences of Brexit. There was no benefit in being a member of this huge free market, but apparently there is a huge benefit in joining some other free market much further away. Why is that?" Oh no, a great many have read them. And understand them. Which is why we carry on with brexit and ftas. Regardless of those who kn these threads reply. " blah blah" at the breakdowns. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very interesting that the OPs very clever houses of cards about the zero effect of Brexit and the enormously positive effect of the CPTPP have not been constructed and published by anybody else anywhere. They have been extrapolated from deeply buried reports so all of the data is, apparently there to see, but nobody else has. Nobody else put these clues together. Certainly nobody has published them. Not any of the Brexit supporting papers, Brexit supporting "think tanks" and economists. There have been absolutely no negative economic consequences of Brexit. There was no benefit in being a member of this huge free market, but apparently there is a huge benefit in joining some other free market much further away. Why is that? Oh no, a great many have read them. And understand them. Which is why we carry on with brexit and ftas. Regardless of those who kn these threads reply. " blah blah" at the breakdowns." Really? Why has nobody published the same conclusions as you have, saying that the OBR calculations of the penalty of leaving the EU is 4% of GDP since 2019 and a 0.08% gain over 10 years with CPTPP. Not even the Government who are very, very excited about it. Just point me to some analyses that draw the same conclusion as you. It would be good to read something coherent on the topic that explains the complete opposite. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Personally I am pleased by this, as I have stated on the forum previously my company does far more business in that part of the world than Europe so it hopefully will help us even more, exiting times to be joining such a large and rapidly expanding market.
Machine parts and/or ball bearings I seem to recall?
But _orleyman said trade with the region covered by CPTPP was expected to reach £30bn by 2030 without UK membership of CPTPP. So we could have had that AND remained in the EU! Are there now any projected growth figures above that £30bn? Does it offset the loses to the economy caused by Brexit?
We can have more trade with them though as that trade will grow at a greater rate as that part of the world is growing quicker.
The losses are pretty hard to judge but given Germany is now behind the uk in it'd recovery from pandemic I think brexit growth losses are overstated.
There is some impact especially early on with the drip inninports and exports fmto and from e.u in 2020 and 2021.
The main impact being equivalency not being given which bow looks to be over with the window framework after e.u reneged.
A few things on your post:
1. The current accepted impact of leaving the EU is a permanent (ie every year forever) loss of 4% to UK GDP. Until another almost universally accepted measure replaces that, then that is the figure we need to quote.
2. Germany’s post pandemic recovery is now slower than the UK (I will need to look that up bu sure you are correct) but as you know a % growth or loss is meaningless unless you know the baseline. Due to the impact of Brexit, the UK baseline was already worse so our recovery has further to go regardless of how fast we get there.
Actually it's not. Have you read the obr report. I believe I asked people in this forum last time and bo one had.
It was an estimation for tbe obr based on several forecasts kn long run expectation on where they saw the uk economy in 15 years( growth) out side vs inside e.u
The 4% literally can bot be realised until 2035. It takes into account no other trade deals. Just that the uk traded with the e.u on tca terms with bo equivalence giving for the services.
(equivalence now given)
The 4% was a mixture of impact assessments from BofE, Nieser,IMF,uk changing Europe and others. They ranged from 1.8% to 10%
The 4% is an average estimate not a crystalised relisation of monetary value.
The uk base line was mainly affected by 2 things.
In 2019 we adjusted our measuring of gdp in line with oecd requirements for transparency and comparability.
No other g7 nations has done this. The effect being when education and health shut down in 2020 the inapct was much bigger. ( no other g7 country reports to the requested stnadards)
In June 2022 the uk performed a blue book revision. Every year to strip out inflation in gdp numbers the uk puts in a deflator.
The uk had originally recovered by the old deflator in November 2021
We changed this ( again at oecd request) so did France and America.
Other coutnries have bot done it they are misreporting. "From the OBR: "With the impact of Brexit on productivity already having reached 1.4 percentage points, according to our estimates, around one third of the long-run impact is, in effect, already in the data." "There is little evidence about the pace at which these effects will be manifest, but we assume that it will take 15 years for the impact to come through in full" The average of 4% loss is of 13 studies. If the 10% outlier of the World Bank is removed that becomes 3.5% loss. 1.4% already realised. Is this dynamic or static? You tell me. CPTPP estimate, the only one available to the world unless you can conjure up another one, estimates with less data a 0.08% benefit. Dynamic or static. I don't care. It's the only data. The one used by the Government. Although, feel free to provide the figure that you, or anyone else, has calculated that is more representative. You are saying that leaving the EU had a negligible effect on UK GDP but joining the CPTPP many thousands of miles away will have a significant positive impact even though we already have free trade deals with most of them. That is what you are saying, right? It really is you writing "blah, blah" unless you can rustle something else up. Not your words. Someone else's. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Personally I am pleased by this, as I have stated on the forum previously my company does far more business in that part of the world than Europe so it hopefully will help us even more, exiting times to be joining such a large and rapidly expanding market.
Machine parts and/or ball bearings I seem to recall?
But _orleyman said trade with the region covered by CPTPP was expected to reach £30bn by 2030 without UK membership of CPTPP. So we could have had that AND remained in the EU! Are there now any projected growth figures above that £30bn? Does it offset the loses to the economy caused by Brexit?
We can have more trade with them though as that trade will grow at a greater rate as that part of the world is growing quicker.
The losses are pretty hard to judge but given Germany is now behind the uk in it'd recovery from pandemic I think brexit growth losses are overstated.
There is some impact especially early on with the drip inninports and exports fmto and from e.u in 2020 and 2021.
The main impact being equivalency not being given which bow looks to be over with the window framework after e.u reneged.
A few things on your post:
1. The current accepted impact of leaving the EU is a permanent (ie every year forever) loss of 4% to UK GDP. Until another almost universally accepted measure replaces that, then that is the figure we need to quote.
2. Germany’s post pandemic recovery is now slower than the UK (I will need to look that up bu sure you are correct) but as you know a % growth or loss is meaningless unless you know the baseline. Due to the impact of Brexit, the UK baseline was already worse so our recovery has further to go regardless of how fast we get there.
Actually it's not. Have you read the obr report. I believe I asked people in this forum last time and bo one had.
It was an estimation for tbe obr based on several forecasts kn long run expectation on where they saw the uk economy in 15 years( growth) out side vs inside e.u
The 4% literally can bot be realised until 2035. It takes into account no other trade deals. Just that the uk traded with the e.u on tca terms with bo equivalence giving for the services.
(equivalence now given)
The 4% was a mixture of impact assessments from BofE, Nieser,IMF,uk changing Europe and others. They ranged from 1.8% to 10%
The 4% is an average estimate not a crystalised relisation of monetary value.
The uk base line was mainly affected by 2 things.
In 2019 we adjusted our measuring of gdp in line with oecd requirements for transparency and comparability.
No other g7 nations has done this. The effect being when education and health shut down in 2020 the inapct was much bigger. ( no other g7 country reports to the requested stnadards)
In June 2022 the uk performed a blue book revision. Every year to strip out inflation in gdp numbers the uk puts in a deflator.
The uk had originally recovered by the old deflator in November 2021
We changed this ( again at oecd request) so did France and America.
Other coutnries have bot done it they are misreporting.
From the OBR:
"With the impact of Brexit on productivity already having reached 1.4 percentage points, according to our estimates, around one third of the long-run impact is, in effect, already in the data."
"There is little evidence about the pace at which these effects will be manifest, but we assume that it will take 15 years for the impact to come through in full"
The average of 4% loss is of 13 studies.
If the 10% outlier of the World Bank is removed that becomes 3.5% loss.
1.4% already realised.
Is this dynamic or static?
You tell me.
CPTPP estimate, the only one available to the world unless you can conjure up another one, estimates with less data a 0.08% benefit. Dynamic or static. I don't care. It's the only data. The one used by the Government. Although, feel free to provide the figure that you, or anyone else, has calculated that is more representative.
You are saying that leaving the EU had a negligible effect on UK GDP but joining the CPTPP many thousands of miles away will have a significant positive impact even though we already have free trade deals with most of them.
That is what you are saying, right?
It really is you writing "blah, blah" unless you can rustle something else up.
Not your words. Someone else's."You are absolutely correct. Saturating a thread with word salads does not take away the fact that driving as far away as possible from an economic Union that already exists in order to join one on the other side of the world is economically illiterate especially when you announce to the world that being in a large economic union brings positive benefits. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why would it be the final nail in the coffin of rejoin? Once we get adults back in Downing Street and the country can start to have grown up conversations about what is going on in the world, the UK could, if it wanted to leave the CPTPP. Not sure why it is a nail in a coffin. Because you can't be a member of both. The total year it would take to withdraw from cptpp and then rejoin e.u would make it impossible. The uk would then have to meet e.u joining criteria and accept the euro. There is just a six-month notice period required to leave the CPTPP. It's hardly complex. Pushing the UK further away from European alignment will be seen in the near future as being economically illiterate. If being in a large trading bloc is beneficial - there is little point in driving as far away, as fast as possible from the one that is geographically closest to you. Kemi Bradendoch got herself twisted in knots this morning trying to explain just this very thing. As for the Euro - bring it on I say. What a complete PITA it has been for years trying to deal with variable exchange rates. Why is re aligning yourself with a growing and bigger market illiterate? The e.u isn't a trading bloc. It's a political union. If you think having a harmonised currency is just getting rid of exchange rates I think ylubshould ask tbenitslians and Greeks how they feel about government debt, mo entry expansion and bonds buying, maybe re visit black Wednesday? " The U.K. could join the Customs Union and Single Market tomorrow without having to join the political union of the EU. It would be stupid not to as in doing so we would have a voice in the direction of travel - we just don’t have to. A single currency makes sense. Why do you have to compare the U.K. with Greece? Is that how you make a point? The U.K. economy has more in common with France, Belgium and the Netherlands than Greece so why not compare like for like? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Personally I am pleased by this, as I have stated on the forum previously my company does far more business in that part of the world than Europe so it hopefully will help us even more, exiting times to be joining such a large and rapidly expanding market.
Machine parts and/or ball bearings I seem to recall?
But _orleyman said trade with the region covered by CPTPP was expected to reach £30bn by 2030 without UK membership of CPTPP. So we could have had that AND remained in the EU! Are there now any projected growth figures above that £30bn? Does it offset the loses to the economy caused by Brexit?
We can have more trade with them though as that trade will grow at a greater rate as that part of the world is growing quicker.
The losses are pretty hard to judge but given Germany is now behind the uk in it'd recovery from pandemic I think brexit growth losses are overstated.
There is some impact especially early on with the drip inninports and exports fmto and from e.u in 2020 and 2021.
The main impact being equivalency not being given which bow looks to be over with the window framework after e.u reneged.
A few things on your post:
1. The current accepted impact of leaving the EU is a permanent (ie every year forever) loss of 4% to UK GDP. Until another almost universally accepted measure replaces that, then that is the figure we need to quote.
2. Germany’s post pandemic recovery is now slower than the UK (I will need to look that up bu sure you are correct) but as you know a % growth or loss is meaningless unless you know the baseline. Due to the impact of Brexit, the UK baseline was already worse so our recovery has further to go regardless of how fast we get there.
Actually it's not. Have you read the obr report. I believe I asked people in this forum last time and bo one had.
It was an estimation for tbe obr based on several forecasts kn long run expectation on where they saw the uk economy in 15 years( growth) out side vs inside e.u
The 4% literally can bot be realised until 2035. It takes into account no other trade deals. Just that the uk traded with the e.u on tca terms with bo equivalence giving for the services.
(equivalence now given)
The 4% was a mixture of impact assessments from BofE, Nieser,IMF,uk changing Europe and others. They ranged from 1.8% to 10%
The 4% is an average estimate not a crystalised relisation of monetary value.
The uk base line was mainly affected by 2 things.
In 2019 we adjusted our measuring of gdp in line with oecd requirements for transparency and comparability.
No other g7 nations has done this. The effect being when education and health shut down in 2020 the inapct was much bigger. ( no other g7 country reports to the requested stnadards)
In June 2022 the uk performed a blue book revision. Every year to strip out inflation in gdp numbers the uk puts in a deflator.
The uk had originally recovered by the old deflator in November 2021
We changed this ( again at oecd request) so did France and America.
Other coutnries have bot done it they are misreporting. "For the sake of simplicity let’s use figures you have used to try and skew your data… You said that the 4% OBR figure comes from a range of estimates between a 1.8% loss and a 10% loss……. So for what I am about to say, let’s go with the least worst scenario… 1.8% You also said that the 0.08% gain OBR say for CPTPP membership can be tripled when Thailand and South Korea join (although the EU already have FTA’s with both countries… but let’s put that aside for now)….. but for now let’s give you the benefit and give you the best case scenario….. 0.24% Still not looking good for you… still down on where the UK was pre leaving the single market! Also… I do think it’s interesting that we are using the OBR 0.08% figure to praise what the government have done… yet still want to rubbish the OBR 4% single market loss figure So do we either trust the OBR with figures…. Or not! Certain people here really want to have their cake and eat it… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very interesting that the OPs very clever houses of cards about the zero effect of Brexit and the enormously positive effect of the CPTPP have not been constructed and published by anybody else anywhere. They have been extrapolated from deeply buried reports so all of the data is, apparently there to see, but nobody else has. Nobody else put these clues together. Certainly nobody has published them. Not any of the Brexit supporting papers, Brexit supporting "think tanks" and economists. There have been absolutely no negative economic consequences of Brexit. There was no benefit in being a member of this huge free market, but apparently there is a huge benefit in joining some other free market much further away. Why is that? Oh no, a great many have read them. And understand them. Which is why we carry on with brexit and ftas. Regardless of those who kn these threads reply. " blah blah" at the breakdowns. Really? Why has nobody published the same conclusions as you have, saying that the OBR calculations of the penalty of leaving the EU is 4% of GDP since 2019 and a 0.08% gain over 10 years with CPTPP. Not even the Government who are very, very excited about it. Just point me to some analyses that draw the same conclusion as you. It would be good to read something coherent on the topic that explains the complete opposite." The obr published its methodology. I am quoting their report. I am quoting the government impact assessment. They are literally published. Please just read them | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Personally I am pleased by this, as I have stated on the forum previously my company does far more business in that part of the world than Europe so it hopefully will help us even more, exiting times to be joining such a large and rapidly expanding market.
Machine parts and/or ball bearings I seem to recall?
But _orleyman said trade with the region covered by CPTPP was expected to reach £30bn by 2030 without UK membership of CPTPP. So we could have had that AND remained in the EU! Are there now any projected growth figures above that £30bn? Does it offset the loses to the economy caused by Brexit?
We can have more trade with them though as that trade will grow at a greater rate as that part of the world is growing quicker.
The losses are pretty hard to judge but given Germany is now behind the uk in it'd recovery from pandemic I think brexit growth losses are overstated.
There is some impact especially early on with the drip inninports and exports fmto and from e.u in 2020 and 2021.
The main impact being equivalency not being given which bow looks to be over with the window framework after e.u reneged.
A few things on your post:
1. The current accepted impact of leaving the EU is a permanent (ie every year forever) loss of 4% to UK GDP. Until another almost universally accepted measure replaces that, then that is the figure we need to quote.
2. Germany’s post pandemic recovery is now slower than the UK (I will need to look that up bu sure you are correct) but as you know a % growth or loss is meaningless unless you know the baseline. Due to the impact of Brexit, the UK baseline was already worse so our recovery has further to go regardless of how fast we get there.
Actually it's not. Have you read the obr report. I believe I asked people in this forum last time and bo one had.
It was an estimation for tbe obr based on several forecasts kn long run expectation on where they saw the uk economy in 15 years( growth) out side vs inside e.u
The 4% literally can bot be realised until 2035. It takes into account no other trade deals. Just that the uk traded with the e.u on tca terms with bo equivalence giving for the services.
(equivalence now given)
The 4% was a mixture of impact assessments from BofE, Nieser,IMF,uk changing Europe and others. They ranged from 1.8% to 10%
The 4% is an average estimate not a crystalised relisation of monetary value.
The uk base line was mainly affected by 2 things.
In 2019 we adjusted our measuring of gdp in line with oecd requirements for transparency and comparability.
No other g7 nations has done this. The effect being when education and health shut down in 2020 the inapct was much bigger. ( no other g7 country reports to the requested stnadards)
In June 2022 the uk performed a blue book revision. Every year to strip out inflation in gdp numbers the uk puts in a deflator.
The uk had originally recovered by the old deflator in November 2021
We changed this ( again at oecd request) so did France and America.
Other coutnries have bot done it they are misreporting.
From the OBR:
"With the impact of Brexit on productivity already having reached 1.4 percentage points, according to our estimates, around one third of the long-run impact is, in effect, already in the data."
"There is little evidence about the pace at which these effects will be manifest, but we assume that it will take 15 years for the impact to come through in full"
The average of 4% loss is of 13 studies.
If the 10% outlier of the World Bank is removed that becomes 3.5% loss.
1.4% already realised.
Is this dynamic or static?
You tell me.
CPTPP estimate, the only one available to the world unless you can conjure up another one, estimates with less data a 0.08% benefit. Dynamic or static. I don't care. It's the only data. The one used by the Government. Although, feel free to provide the figure that you, or anyone else, has calculated that is more representative.
You are saying that leaving the EU had a negligible effect on UK GDP but joining the CPTPP many thousands of miles away will have a significant positive impact even though we already have free trade deals with most of them.
That is what you are saying, right?
It really is you writing "blah, blah" unless you can rustle something else up.
Not your words. Someone else's."Again 1.4% isn't realised. This is them quoting the 13 studies. And the impact they said would happen. Seriously read the impact report and the studies. Instead of just copy pasting onto here ignorantly. You would realise that upon reading the 13 estimations that they assumed that immigrations would turn to less than 100 000 in tbe following years from 2016 And in some emigration would take place. You know what actually happened ? Net immigration went UP So if you assume productivity goes in the succeeding years What happens when it actually goes up? The problem you have is you quote things you actually haven't read or understood. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Personally I am pleased by this, as I have stated on the forum previously my company does far more business in that part of the world than Europe so it hopefully will help us even more, exiting times to be joining such a large and rapidly expanding market.
Machine parts and/or ball bearings I seem to recall?
But _orleyman said trade with the region covered by CPTPP was expected to reach £30bn by 2030 without UK membership of CPTPP. So we could have had that AND remained in the EU! Are there now any projected growth figures above that £30bn? Does it offset the loses to the economy caused by Brexit?
We can have more trade with them though as that trade will grow at a greater rate as that part of the world is growing quicker.
The losses are pretty hard to judge but given Germany is now behind the uk in it'd recovery from pandemic I think brexit growth losses are overstated.
There is some impact especially early on with the drip inninports and exports fmto and from e.u in 2020 and 2021.
The main impact being equivalency not being given which bow looks to be over with the window framework after e.u reneged.
A few things on your post:
1. The current accepted impact of leaving the EU is a permanent (ie every year forever) loss of 4% to UK GDP. Until another almost universally accepted measure replaces that, then that is the figure we need to quote.
2. Germany’s post pandemic recovery is now slower than the UK (I will need to look that up bu sure you are correct) but as you know a % growth or loss is meaningless unless you know the baseline. Due to the impact of Brexit, the UK baseline was already worse so our recovery has further to go regardless of how fast we get there.
Actually it's not. Have you read the obr report. I believe I asked people in this forum last time and bo one had.
It was an estimation for tbe obr based on several forecasts kn long run expectation on where they saw the uk economy in 15 years( growth) out side vs inside e.u
The 4% literally can bot be realised until 2035. It takes into account no other trade deals. Just that the uk traded with the e.u on tca terms with bo equivalence giving for the services.
(equivalence now given)
The 4% was a mixture of impact assessments from BofE, Nieser,IMF,uk changing Europe and others. They ranged from 1.8% to 10%
The 4% is an average estimate not a crystalised relisation of monetary value.
The uk base line was mainly affected by 2 things.
In 2019 we adjusted our measuring of gdp in line with oecd requirements for transparency and comparability.
No other g7 nations has done this. The effect being when education and health shut down in 2020 the inapct was much bigger. ( no other g7 country reports to the requested stnadards)
In June 2022 the uk performed a blue book revision. Every year to strip out inflation in gdp numbers the uk puts in a deflator.
The uk had originally recovered by the old deflator in November 2021
We changed this ( again at oecd request) so did France and America.
Other coutnries have bot done it they are misreporting.
From the OBR:
"With the impact of Brexit on productivity already having reached 1.4 percentage points, according to our estimates, around one third of the long-run impact is, in effect, already in the data."
"There is little evidence about the pace at which these effects will be manifest, but we assume that it will take 15 years for the impact to come through in full"
The average of 4% loss is of 13 studies.
If the 10% outlier of the World Bank is removed that becomes 3.5% loss.
1.4% already realised.
Is this dynamic or static?
You tell me.
CPTPP estimate, the only one available to the world unless you can conjure up another one, estimates with less data a 0.08% benefit. Dynamic or static. I don't care. It's the only data. The one used by the Government. Although, feel free to provide the figure that you, or anyone else, has calculated that is more representative.
You are saying that leaving the EU had a negligible effect on UK GDP but joining the CPTPP many thousands of miles away will have a significant positive impact even though we already have free trade deals with most of them.
That is what you are saying, right?
It really is you writing "blah, blah" unless you can rustle something else up.
Not your words. Someone else's.
You are absolutely correct. Saturating a thread with word salads does not take away the fact that driving as far away as possible from an economic Union that already exists in order to join one on the other side of the world is economically illiterate especially when you announce to the world that being in a large economic union brings positive benefits."Economic and political union vs a free trade agreement. They are different. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Why would it be the final nail in the coffin of rejoin? Once we get adults back in Downing Street and the country can start to have grown up conversations about what is going on in the world, the UK could, if it wanted to leave the CPTPP. Not sure why it is a nail in a coffin. Because you can't be a member of both. The total year it would take to withdraw from cptpp and then rejoin e.u would make it impossible. The uk would then have to meet e.u joining criteria and accept the euro. There is just a six-month notice period required to leave the CPTPP. It's hardly complex. Pushing the UK further away from European alignment will be seen in the near future as being economically illiterate. If being in a large trading bloc is beneficial - there is little point in driving as far away, as fast as possible from the one that is geographically closest to you. Kemi Bradendoch got herself twisted in knots this morning trying to explain just this very thing. As for the Euro - bring it on I say. What a complete PITA it has been for years trying to deal with variable exchange rates. Why is re aligning yourself with a growing and bigger market illiterate? The e.u isn't a trading bloc. It's a political union. If you think having a harmonised currency is just getting rid of exchange rates I think ylubshould ask tbenitslians and Greeks how they feel about government debt, mo entry expansion and bonds buying, maybe re visit black Wednesday? The U.K. could join the Customs Union and Single Market tomorrow without having to join the political union of the EU. It would be stupid not to as in doing so we would have a voice in the direction of travel - we just don’t have to. A single currency makes sense. Why do you have to compare the U.K. with Greece? Is that how you make a point? The U.K. economy has more in common with France, Belgium and the Netherlands than Greece so why not compare like for like?" How do you conceive they do this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Personally I am pleased by this, as I have stated on the forum previously my company does far more business in that part of the world than Europe so it hopefully will help us even more, exiting times to be joining such a large and rapidly expanding market.
Machine parts and/or ball bearings I seem to recall?
But _orleyman said trade with the region covered by CPTPP was expected to reach £30bn by 2030 without UK membership of CPTPP. So we could have had that AND remained in the EU! Are there now any projected growth figures above that £30bn? Does it offset the loses to the economy caused by Brexit?
We can have more trade with them though as that trade will grow at a greater rate as that part of the world is growing quicker.
The losses are pretty hard to judge but given Germany is now behind the uk in it'd recovery from pandemic I think brexit growth losses are overstated.
There is some impact especially early on with the drip inninports and exports fmto and from e.u in 2020 and 2021.
The main impact being equivalency not being given which bow looks to be over with the window framework after e.u reneged.
A few things on your post:
1. The current accepted impact of leaving the EU is a permanent (ie every year forever) loss of 4% to UK GDP. Until another almost universally accepted measure replaces that, then that is the figure we need to quote.
2. Germany’s post pandemic recovery is now slower than the UK (I will need to look that up bu sure you are correct) but as you know a % growth or loss is meaningless unless you know the baseline. Due to the impact of Brexit, the UK baseline was already worse so our recovery has further to go regardless of how fast we get there.
Actually it's not. Have you read the obr report. I believe I asked people in this forum last time and bo one had.
It was an estimation for tbe obr based on several forecasts kn long run expectation on where they saw the uk economy in 15 years( growth) out side vs inside e.u
The 4% literally can bot be realised until 2035. It takes into account no other trade deals. Just that the uk traded with the e.u on tca terms with bo equivalence giving for the services.
(equivalence now given)
The 4% was a mixture of impact assessments from BofE, Nieser,IMF,uk changing Europe and others. They ranged from 1.8% to 10%
The 4% is an average estimate not a crystalised relisation of monetary value.
The uk base line was mainly affected by 2 things.
In 2019 we adjusted our measuring of gdp in line with oecd requirements for transparency and comparability.
No other g7 nations has done this. The effect being when education and health shut down in 2020 the inapct was much bigger. ( no other g7 country reports to the requested stnadards)
In June 2022 the uk performed a blue book revision. Every year to strip out inflation in gdp numbers the uk puts in a deflator.
The uk had originally recovered by the old deflator in November 2021
We changed this ( again at oecd request) so did France and America.
Other coutnries have bot done it they are misreporting.
For the sake of simplicity let’s use figures you have used to try and skew your data…
You said that the 4% OBR figure comes from a range of estimates between a 1.8% loss and a 10% loss……. So for what I am about to say, let’s go with the least worst scenario… 1.8%
You also said that the 0.08% gain OBR say for CPTPP membership can be tripled when Thailand and South Korea join (although the EU already have FTA’s with both countries… but let’s put that aside for now)….. but for now let’s give you the benefit and give you the best case scenario….. 0.24%
Still not looking good for you… still down on where the UK was pre leaving the single market!
Also… I do think it’s interesting that we are using the OBR 0.08% figure to praise what the government have done… yet still want to rubbish the OBR 4% single market loss figure
So do we either trust the OBR with figures…. Or not!
Certain people here really want to have their cake and eat it…"I can happily do you a thread and break down the nuggets of how the obr averaged out those estimation and what drove those estimations. The 0.08% figure is the worst case scenario. The 4% figure is the average case scenario so straight off the bat you ave decided use an imbalance in stats I think whatbyoubare forgetting and a great many in this thread already have. The 1.8% and 4% also didn't know what the tca would look like. How can you possibly forecast in 2016 an fta that was agreed 4 years later? The forecasts typically had 0.6% - 1% drop as due tk trade friction most didn't assume we would habe a tarriff free quota free agreement. They also assumed the uk would go from a net immigration to an emigration. They used an average immigration for this over x years vs expect loss of immigration as decided productivity and thus gdp would go down Do you know what happened Immigration average went UP | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I do think it’s interesting that we are using the OBR 0.08% figure to praise what the government have done… yet still want to rubbish the OBR 4% single market loss figure So do we either trust the OBR with figures…. Or not!" The difference is that the 4% figure was made a few years ago, using assumptions which have subsequently been proved to be wrong. The 0.08% figure is an estimate of the value added to the economy by signing the treaty, it's not an estimate of how much the economy will grow after signing. So the 2 figures really shouldn't be compared, because they aren't measuring the same thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I do think it’s interesting that we are using the OBR 0.08% figure to praise what the government have done… yet still want to rubbish the OBR 4% single market loss figure So do we either trust the OBR with figures…. Or not! The difference is that the 4% figure was made a few years ago, using assumptions which have subsequently been proved to be wrong. The 0.08% figure is an estimate of the value added to the economy by signing the treaty, it's not an estimate of how much the economy will grow after signing. So the 2 figures really shouldn't be compared, because they aren't measuring the same thing." Hasn’t the 4% figure recently been revised up to 5.2%? I may have misread or dreamt that of course | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hasn’t the 4% figure recently been revised up to 5.2%? I may have misread or dreamt that of course" Only by the Centre for European Reform. Possibly not the most impartial source. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very interesting that the OPs very clever houses of cards about the zero effect of Brexit and the enormously positive effect of the CPTPP have not been constructed and published by anybody else anywhere. They have been extrapolated from deeply buried reports so all of the data is, apparently there to see, but nobody else has. Nobody else put these clues together. Certainly nobody has published them. Not any of the Brexit supporting papers, Brexit supporting "think tanks" and economists. There have been absolutely no negative economic consequences of Brexit. There was no benefit in being a member of this huge free market, but apparently there is a huge benefit in joining some other free market much further away. Why is that? Oh no, a great many have read them. And understand them. Which is why we carry on with brexit and ftas. Regardless of those who kn these threads reply. " blah blah" at the breakdowns. Really? Why has nobody published the same conclusions as you have, saying that the OBR calculations of the penalty of leaving the EU is 4% of GDP since 2019 and a 0.08% gain over 10 years with CPTPP. Not even the Government who are very, very excited about it. Just point me to some analyses that draw the same conclusion as you. It would be good to read something coherent on the topic that explains the complete opposite. The obr published its methodology. I am quoting their report. I am quoting the government impact assessment. They are literally published. Please just read them" Then you are, literally, reinterpreting the OBR are and Government figures. You are saying they don't understand their own data and are unable to present it properly, but you can. Correct? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very interesting that the OPs very clever houses of cards about the zero effect of Brexit and the enormously positive effect of the CPTPP have not been constructed and published by anybody else anywhere. They have been extrapolated from deeply buried reports so all of the data is, apparently there to see, but nobody else has. Nobody else put these clues together. Certainly nobody has published them. Not any of the Brexit supporting papers, Brexit supporting "think tanks" and economists. There have been absolutely no negative economic consequences of Brexit. There was no benefit in being a member of this huge free market, but apparently there is a huge benefit in joining some other free market much further away. Why is that? Oh no, a great many have read them. And understand them. Which is why we carry on with brexit and ftas. Regardless of those who kn these threads reply. " blah blah" at the breakdowns. Really? Why has nobody published the same conclusions as you have, saying that the OBR calculations of the penalty of leaving the EU is 4% of GDP since 2019 and a 0.08% gain over 10 years with CPTPP. Not even the Government who are very, very excited about it. Just point me to some analyses that draw the same conclusion as you. It would be good to read something coherent on the topic that explains the complete opposite. The obr published its methodology. I am quoting their report. I am quoting the government impact assessment. They are literally published. Please just read them Then you are, literally, reinterpreting the OBR are and Government figures. You are saying they don't understand their own data and are unable to present it properly, but you can. Correct?" No I am not I am explaining their methodology. Which you do not understand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Personally I am pleased by this, as I have stated on the forum previously my company does far more business in that part of the world than Europe so it hopefully will help us even more, exiting times to be joining such a large and rapidly expanding market.
Machine parts and/or ball bearings I seem to recall?
But _orleyman said trade with the region covered by CPTPP was expected to reach £30bn by 2030 without UK membership of CPTPP. So we could have had that AND remained in the EU! Are there now any projected growth figures above that £30bn? Does it offset the loses to the economy caused by Brexit?
We can have more trade with them though as that trade will grow at a greater rate as that part of the world is growing quicker.
The losses are pretty hard to judge but given Germany is now behind the uk in it'd recovery from pandemic I think brexit growth losses are overstated.
There is some impact especially early on with the drip inninports and exports fmto and from e.u in 2020 and 2021.
The main impact being equivalency not being given which bow looks to be over with the window framework after e.u reneged.
A few things on your post:
1. The current accepted impact of leaving the EU is a permanent (ie every year forever) loss of 4% to UK GDP. Until another almost universally accepted measure replaces that, then that is the figure we need to quote.
2. Germany’s post pandemic recovery is now slower than the UK (I will need to look that up bu sure you are correct) but as you know a % growth or loss is meaningless unless you know the baseline. Due to the impact of Brexit, the UK baseline was already worse so our recovery has further to go regardless of how fast we get there.
Actually it's not. Have you read the obr report. I believe I asked people in this forum last time and bo one had.
It was an estimation for tbe obr based on several forecasts kn long run expectation on where they saw the uk economy in 15 years( growth) out side vs inside e.u
The 4% literally can bot be realised until 2035. It takes into account no other trade deals. Just that the uk traded with the e.u on tca terms with bo equivalence giving for the services.
(equivalence now given)
The 4% was a mixture of impact assessments from BofE, Nieser,IMF,uk changing Europe and others. They ranged from 1.8% to 10%
The 4% is an average estimate not a crystalised relisation of monetary value.
The uk base line was mainly affected by 2 things.
In 2019 we adjusted our measuring of gdp in line with oecd requirements for transparency and comparability.
No other g7 nations has done this. The effect being when education and health shut down in 2020 the inapct was much bigger. ( no other g7 country reports to the requested stnadards)
In June 2022 the uk performed a blue book revision. Every year to strip out inflation in gdp numbers the uk puts in a deflator.
The uk had originally recovered by the old deflator in November 2021
We changed this ( again at oecd request) so did France and America.
Other coutnries have bot done it they are misreporting.
For the sake of simplicity let’s use figures you have used to try and skew your data…
You said that the 4% OBR figure comes from a range of estimates between a 1.8% loss and a 10% loss……. So for what I am about to say, let’s go with the least worst scenario… 1.8%
You also said that the 0.08% gain OBR say for CPTPP membership can be tripled when Thailand and South Korea join (although the EU already have FTA’s with both countries… but let’s put that aside for now)….. but for now let’s give you the benefit and give you the best case scenario….. 0.24%
Still not looking good for you… still down on where the UK was pre leaving the single market!
Also… I do think it’s interesting that we are using the OBR 0.08% figure to praise what the government have done… yet still want to rubbish the OBR 4% single market loss figure
So do we either trust the OBR with figures…. Or not!
Certain people here really want to have their cake and eat it…
I can happily do you a thread and break down the nuggets of how the obr averaged out those estimation and what drove those estimations.
The 0.08% figure is the worst case scenario.
The 4% figure is the average case scenario so straight off the bat you ave decided use an imbalance in stats
I think whatbyoubare forgetting and a great many in this thread already have.
The 1.8% and 4% also didn't know what the tca would look like. How can you possibly forecast in 2016 an fta that was agreed 4 years later?
The forecasts typically had 0.6% - 1% drop as due tk trade friction most didn't assume we would habe a tarriff free quota free agreement.
They also assumed the uk would go from a net immigration to an emigration. They used an average immigration for this over x years vs expect loss of immigration as decided productivity and thus gdp would go down
Do you know what happened
Immigration average went UP"Not trying to defend obr here but understand. The studies the obr used for their average assumed a typical FTA. How much would the deeper FTA have made a difference? (And presumably that means no FTA would have been catastrophic?) I get the argument that all this is future looking and before detail were known. But the OBR have estimated the impact to date is 1.4pc. Is that a number we can therefor believe on the same way as believing the 0.08pc? Finally, it would be really interesting to understand how much we should reduce the impact of the estimates due to immigration being bon the other direction. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got a little bored of posting links on here to backup data and getting banned. But I remember one particular poster on here was adamant new zealand , Australia and cptpp accession wouldn't happen and said to come back when they were agreed It looks like this Thursday the final nail I the coffin of rejoin will happen when the uk is granted accession to cptpp and royal assent to be granted to both aus and nz after house of Lords gave both deals the go ahead.
Personally I am pleased by this, as I have stated on the forum previously my company does far more business in that part of the world than Europe so it hopefully will help us even more, exiting times to be joining such a large and rapidly expanding market.
Machine parts and/or ball bearings I seem to recall?
But _orleyman said trade with the region covered by CPTPP was expected to reach £30bn by 2030 without UK membership of CPTPP. So we could have had that AND remained in the EU! Are there now any projected growth figures above that £30bn? Does it offset the loses to the economy caused by Brexit?
We can have more trade with them though as that trade will grow at a greater rate as that part of the world is growing quicker.
The losses are pretty hard to judge but given Germany is now behind the uk in it'd recovery from pandemic I think brexit growth losses are overstated.
There is some impact especially early on with the drip inninports and exports fmto and from e.u in 2020 and 2021.
The main impact being equivalency not being given which bow looks to be over with the window framework after e.u reneged.
A few things on your post:
1. The current accepted impact of leaving the EU is a permanent (ie every year forever) loss of 4% to UK GDP. Until another almost universally accepted measure replaces that, then that is the figure we need to quote.
2. Germany’s post pandemic recovery is now slower than the UK (I will need to look that up bu sure you are correct) but as you know a % growth or loss is meaningless unless you know the baseline. Due to the impact of Brexit, the UK baseline was already worse so our recovery has further to go regardless of how fast we get there.
Actually it's not. Have you read the obr report. I believe I asked people in this forum last time and bo one had.
It was an estimation for tbe obr based on several forecasts kn long run expectation on where they saw the uk economy in 15 years( growth) out side vs inside e.u
The 4% literally can bot be realised until 2035. It takes into account no other trade deals. Just that the uk traded with the e.u on tca terms with bo equivalence giving for the services.
(equivalence now given)
The 4% was a mixture of impact assessments from BofE, Nieser,IMF,uk changing Europe and others. They ranged from 1.8% to 10%
The 4% is an average estimate not a crystalised relisation of monetary value.
The uk base line was mainly affected by 2 things.
In 2019 we adjusted our measuring of gdp in line with oecd requirements for transparency and comparability.
No other g7 nations has done this. The effect being when education and health shut down in 2020 the inapct was much bigger. ( no other g7 country reports to the requested stnadards)
In June 2022 the uk performed a blue book revision. Every year to strip out inflation in gdp numbers the uk puts in a deflator.
The uk had originally recovered by the old deflator in November 2021
We changed this ( again at oecd request) so did France and America.
Other coutnries have bot done it they are misreporting.
For the sake of simplicity let’s use figures you have used to try and skew your data…
You said that the 4% OBR figure comes from a range of estimates between a 1.8% loss and a 10% loss……. So for what I am about to say, let’s go with the least worst scenario… 1.8%
You also said that the 0.08% gain OBR say for CPTPP membership can be tripled when Thailand and South Korea join (although the EU already have FTA’s with both countries… but let’s put that aside for now)….. but for now let’s give you the benefit and give you the best case scenario….. 0.24%
Still not looking good for you… still down on where the UK was pre leaving the single market!
Also… I do think it’s interesting that we are using the OBR 0.08% figure to praise what the government have done… yet still want to rubbish the OBR 4% single market loss figure
So do we either trust the OBR with figures…. Or not!
Certain people here really want to have their cake and eat it…
I can happily do you a thread and break down the nuggets of how the obr averaged out those estimation and what drove those estimations.
The 0.08% figure is the worst case scenario.
The 4% figure is the average case scenario so straight off the bat you ave decided use an imbalance in stats
I think whatbyoubare forgetting and a great many in this thread already have.
The 1.8% and 4% also didn't know what the tca would look like. How can you possibly forecast in 2016 an fta that was agreed 4 years later?
The forecasts typically had 0.6% - 1% drop as due tk trade friction most didn't assume we would habe a tarriff free quota free agreement.
They also assumed the uk would go from a net immigration to an emigration. They used an average immigration for this over x years vs expect loss of immigration as decided productivity and thus gdp would go down
Do you know what happened
Immigration average went UP"Yes, do us a thread of how you, alone, have reinterpreted the data in a way that nobody else is capable of doing. Even better, link to someone other than you who has done something like this. For instance, what is the best case scenario figure for joining CPTPP? Why did the OBR state this in February? "Our assessment is that the TCA is broadly similar to the ‘typical’ FTAs assumed in those studies and reflected in our forecasts since March 2020. We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening" or this? "we revised up our forecast for net migration to reflect evidence of sustained strength in inward migration since the post-Brexit migration regime was introduced. We now assume net migration settles at 205,000 a year from 2026 onwards (based on the ONS 2020-based interim migration projection)." You really should read these documents. How will disputes between companies and Governments wanting to introduce domestic legislation that negatively impacts them be resolved in the CPTPP, by the way? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very interesting that the OPs very clever houses of cards about the zero effect of Brexit and the enormously positive effect of the CPTPP have not been constructed and published by anybody else anywhere. They have been extrapolated from deeply buried reports so all of the data is, apparently there to see, but nobody else has. Nobody else put these clues together. Certainly nobody has published them. Not any of the Brexit supporting papers, Brexit supporting "think tanks" and economists. There have been absolutely no negative economic consequences of Brexit. There was no benefit in being a member of this huge free market, but apparently there is a huge benefit in joining some other free market much further away. Why is that? Oh no, a great many have read them. And understand them. Which is why we carry on with brexit and ftas. Regardless of those who kn these threads reply. " blah blah" at the breakdowns. Really? Why has nobody published the same conclusions as you have, saying that the OBR calculations of the penalty of leaving the EU is 4% of GDP since 2019 and a 0.08% gain over 10 years with CPTPP. Not even the Government who are very, very excited about it. Just point me to some analyses that draw the same conclusion as you. It would be good to read something coherent on the topic that explains the complete opposite. The obr published its methodology. I am quoting their report. I am quoting the government impact assessment. They are literally published. Please just read them Then you are, literally, reinterpreting the OBR are and Government figures. You are saying they don't understand their own data and are unable to present it properly, but you can. Correct? No I am not I am explaining their methodology. Which you do not understand." You are presenting the same data (that's what you said) and saying that the conclusions that they reached and numbers quoted should not be used anymore. In fact, the CPTPP data should never have been used as it indicates nothing useful. I don't "understand" their data in the way you would like me to. I get that very clearly. Leaving the EU caused no problems because interpretation of "methodology". Joining the CPTPP is brilliant because of interpretation of "methodology". Correct? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very interesting that the OPs very clever houses of cards about the zero effect of Brexit and the enormously positive effect of the CPTPP have not been constructed and published by anybody else anywhere. They have been extrapolated from deeply buried reports so all of the data is, apparently there to see, but nobody else has. Nobody else put these clues together. Certainly nobody has published them. Not any of the Brexit supporting papers, Brexit supporting "think tanks" and economists. There have been absolutely no negative economic consequences of Brexit. There was no benefit in being a member of this huge free market, but apparently there is a huge benefit in joining some other free market much further away. Why is that? Oh no, a great many have read them. And understand them. Which is why we carry on with brexit and ftas. Regardless of those who kn these threads reply. " blah blah" at the breakdowns. Really? Why has nobody published the same conclusions as you have, saying that the OBR calculations of the penalty of leaving the EU is 4% of GDP since 2019 and a 0.08% gain over 10 years with CPTPP. Not even the Government who are very, very excited about it. Just point me to some analyses that draw the same conclusion as you. It would be good to read something coherent on the topic that explains the complete opposite. The obr published its methodology. I am quoting their report. I am quoting the government impact assessment. They are literally published. Please just read them Then you are, literally, reinterpreting the OBR are and Government figures. You are saying they don't understand their own data and are unable to present it properly, but you can. Correct? No I am not I am explaining their methodology. Which you do not understand. You are presenting the same data (that's what you said) and saying that the conclusions that they reached and numbers quoted should not be used anymore. In fact, the CPTPP data should never have been used as it indicates nothing useful. I don't "understand" their data in the way you would like me to. I get that very clearly. Leaving the EU caused no problems because interpretation of "methodology". Joining the CPTPP is brilliant because of interpretation of "methodology". Correct?" I am presenting the same data. I am merely exaining to you the methodology. And the thinking that is what you do not understand. People were saying that there was a 4% hit to gdp and this was said by the obr. Thisnks not true The obr said they out together 13 forecasts and they averaged out over 15 years a 4% drop in gdp from leaving vs remain That's it. That's what the obr said. I read the forecasts and the assumptions. For example the world Bank assumed not trade deal and trade on mfn( i knkw this becaus ei read it). We now know thisnisnt the case. So the world Bank forecast is out. We know the bofe forecast ( again I know this because I read it) that productivity would slow and impact gdp because it assumes.ed we would enter net emigration. Again we know since their average migration used that in fact the uk didn't turn into net emigration but net immigration INCREASED I am not saying anything different to the OBR. The OBR put together these forecasts, Averaged them to 4% it made bo comment on the validity and accuracy of the assumptions. Assumption we bow have the data/ agreements to disprove. Again with cptpp. I am merely pointing out to you the methodology. That is assumes 0.08 % growth on a static model. We know that it doesn't account for new industrial exports thay have never had a market before. We know it doesn't account for any new members for 15 years. But we also know that south Korea and Thailand have applied to join. I merely point out I the assumption that tmif they do join thay 0.08 becomes 2.4% You seem angry at me explaining how these things are calculated because I bothered my arse to read them | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very interesting that the OPs very clever houses of cards about the zero effect of Brexit and the enormously positive effect of the CPTPP have not been constructed and published by anybody else anywhere. They have been extrapolated from deeply buried reports so all of the data is, apparently there to see, but nobody else has. Nobody else put these clues together. Certainly nobody has published them. Not any of the Brexit supporting papers, Brexit supporting "think tanks" and economists. There have been absolutely no negative economic consequences of Brexit. There was no benefit in being a member of this huge free market, but apparently there is a huge benefit in joining some other free market much further away. Why is that? Oh no, a great many have read them. And understand them. Which is why we carry on with brexit and ftas. Regardless of those who kn these threads reply. " blah blah" at the breakdowns. Really? Why has nobody published the same conclusions as you have, saying that the OBR calculations of the penalty of leaving the EU is 4% of GDP since 2019 and a 0.08% gain over 10 years with CPTPP. Not even the Government who are very, very excited about it. Just point me to some analyses that draw the same conclusion as you. It would be good to read something coherent on the topic that explains the complete opposite. The obr published its methodology. I am quoting their report. I am quoting the government impact assessment. They are literally published. Please just read them Then you are, literally, reinterpreting the OBR are and Government figures. You are saying they don't understand their own data and are unable to present it properly, but you can. Correct? No I am not I am explaining their methodology. Which you do not understand. You are presenting the same data (that's what you said) and saying that the conclusions that they reached and numbers quoted should not be used anymore. In fact, the CPTPP data should never have been used as it indicates nothing useful. I don't "understand" their data in the way you would like me to. I get that very clearly. Leaving the EU caused no problems because interpretation of "methodology". Joining the CPTPP is brilliant because of interpretation of "methodology". Correct? I am presenting the same data. I am merely exaining to you the methodology. And the thinking that is what you do not understand. People were saying that there was a 4% hit to gdp and this was said by the obr. Thisnks not true The obr said they out together 13 forecasts and they averaged out over 15 years a 4% drop in gdp from leaving vs remain That's it. That's what the obr said. I read the forecasts and the assumptions. For example the world Bank assumed not trade deal and trade on mfn( i knkw this becaus ei read it). We now know thisnisnt the case. So the world Bank forecast is out. We know the bofe forecast ( again I know this because I read it) that productivity would slow and impact gdp because it assumes.ed we would enter net emigration. Again we know since their average migration used that in fact the uk didn't turn into net emigration but net immigration INCREASED I am not saying anything different to the OBR. The OBR put together these forecasts, Averaged them to 4% it made bo comment on the validity and accuracy of the assumptions. Assumption we bow have the data/ agreements to disprove. Again with cptpp. I am merely pointing out to you the methodology. That is assumes 0.08 % growth on a static model. We know that it doesn't account for new industrial exports thay have never had a market before. We know it doesn't account for any new members for 15 years. But we also know that south Korea and Thailand have applied to join. I merely point out I the assumption that tmif they do join thay 0.08 becomes 2.4% You seem angry at me explaining how these things are calculated because I bothered my arse to read them" I'm not angry with you, but interesting interpretation. You just seem unable to communicate in a coherent way. It's taken you this long to organise your words to explain something that is perfectly understandable if, as you say, you read the reports. The OBR estimated a 4% reduction in GDP due to Brexit. There is nothing inherently wrong with the models which they chose to take an average of. They have clearly stated that estimate that a 1.6% fall had already taken place before the TCA. Not projected. Happened. They have clearly stated that the final form of the TCA does not change the original estimate. The only substantive difference is for immigration which will reduce the loss by an unquantified amount. Ultimately all you have said is that the loss from Brexit is less than 4% GDP over 15 years based purely on this analysis. You don't know by how much although 1.6% has already occured. It doesn't take into account the UK no longer being an attractive point of access to the EU for industrial and financial investment etc. The CPTPP figure of 0.08% is tiny. Neither you, nor anybody else has a better figure though. Are you able to provide any study that provides and upper bound? You also just asserted that two more countries joining a group of 11 will increase our GDP by a further 2.32% 11 countries +0.08% 13 countries +2.40% Data from where? We already have a free trade deal with one of them. South Korea. The Government estimated that the free trade deal with Japan (a larger economy) was only worth 0.1% GDP over 15 years. The conclusion from all of this seems to be that the estimated loss from leaving the EU is significantly larger than the estimated benefit from joining the CPTPP (unless you can show otherwise) with no likelihood of inward investment to the UK for access to a Pacific trading group. However your consistent message has been that there has been no significant loss to the UK in leaving the UK and that there is a major benefit in joining the CPTPP. No other organisation seems to believe this other than the UK Government and some elements of the British press although that requires ignoring their own figures. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very interesting that the OPs very clever houses of cards about the zero effect of Brexit and the enormously positive effect of the CPTPP have not been constructed and published by anybody else anywhere. They have been extrapolated from deeply buried reports so all of the data is, apparently there to see, but nobody else has. Nobody else put these clues together. Certainly nobody has published them. Not any of the Brexit supporting papers, Brexit supporting "think tanks" and economists. There have been absolutely no negative economic consequences of Brexit. There was no benefit in being a member of this huge free market, but apparently there is a huge benefit in joining some other free market much further away. Why is that? Oh no, a great many have read them. And understand them. Which is why we carry on with brexit and ftas. Regardless of those who kn these threads reply. " blah blah" at the breakdowns. Really? Why has nobody published the same conclusions as you have, saying that the OBR calculations of the penalty of leaving the EU is 4% of GDP since 2019 and a 0.08% gain over 10 years with CPTPP. Not even the Government who are very, very excited about it. Just point me to some analyses that draw the same conclusion as you. It would be good to read something coherent on the topic that explains the complete opposite. The obr published its methodology. I am quoting their report. I am quoting the government impact assessment. They are literally published. Please just read them Then you are, literally, reinterpreting the OBR are and Government figures. You are saying they don't understand their own data and are unable to present it properly, but you can. Correct? No I am not I am explaining their methodology. Which you do not understand. You are presenting the same data (that's what you said) and saying that the conclusions that they reached and numbers quoted should not be used anymore. In fact, the CPTPP data should never have been used as it indicates nothing useful. I don't "understand" their data in the way you would like me to. I get that very clearly. Leaving the EU caused no problems because interpretation of "methodology". Joining the CPTPP is brilliant because of interpretation of "methodology". Correct? I am presenting the same data. I am merely exaining to you the methodology. And the thinking that is what you do not understand. People were saying that there was a 4% hit to gdp and this was said by the obr. Thisnks not true The obr said they out together 13 forecasts and they averaged out over 15 years a 4% drop in gdp from leaving vs remain That's it. That's what the obr said. I read the forecasts and the assumptions. For example the world Bank assumed not trade deal and trade on mfn( i knkw this becaus ei read it). We now know thisnisnt the case. So the world Bank forecast is out. We know the bofe forecast ( again I know this because I read it) that productivity would slow and impact gdp because it assumes.ed we would enter net emigration. Again we know since their average migration used that in fact the uk didn't turn into net emigration but net immigration INCREASED I am not saying anything different to the OBR. The OBR put together these forecasts, Averaged them to 4% it made bo comment on the validity and accuracy of the assumptions. Assumption we bow have the data/ agreements to disprove. Again with cptpp. I am merely pointing out to you the methodology. That is assumes 0.08 % growth on a static model. We know that it doesn't account for new industrial exports thay have never had a market before. We know it doesn't account for any new members for 15 years. But we also know that south Korea and Thailand have applied to join. I merely point out I the assumption that tmif they do join thay 0.08 becomes 2.4% You seem angry at me explaining how these things are calculated because I bothered my arse to read them" No… you said that the 0.08% would triple with the inclusion of Thailand and South Korea…. 0.08 x 3……. 0.24! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very interesting that the OPs very clever houses of cards about the zero effect of Brexit and the enormously positive effect of the CPTPP have not been constructed and published by anybody else anywhere. They have been extrapolated from deeply buried reports so all of the data is, apparently there to see, but nobody else has. Nobody else put these clues together. Certainly nobody has published them. Not any of the Brexit supporting papers, Brexit supporting "think tanks" and economists. There have been absolutely no negative economic consequences of Brexit. There was no benefit in being a member of this huge free market, but apparently there is a huge benefit in joining some other free market much further away. Why is that? Oh no, a great many have read them. And understand them. Which is why we carry on with brexit and ftas. Regardless of those who kn these threads reply. " blah blah" at the breakdowns. Really? Why has nobody published the same conclusions as you have, saying that the OBR calculations of the penalty of leaving the EU is 4% of GDP since 2019 and a 0.08% gain over 10 years with CPTPP. Not even the Government who are very, very excited about it. Just point me to some analyses that draw the same conclusion as you. It would be good to read something coherent on the topic that explains the complete opposite. The obr published its methodology. I am quoting their report. I am quoting the government impact assessment. They are literally published. Please just read them Then you are, literally, reinterpreting the OBR are and Government figures. You are saying they don't understand their own data and are unable to present it properly, but you can. Correct? No I am not I am explaining their methodology. Which you do not understand. You are presenting the same data (that's what you said) and saying that the conclusions that they reached and numbers quoted should not be used anymore. In fact, the CPTPP data should never have been used as it indicates nothing useful. I don't "understand" their data in the way you would like me to. I get that very clearly. Leaving the EU caused no problems because interpretation of "methodology". Joining the CPTPP is brilliant because of interpretation of "methodology". Correct? I am presenting the same data. I am merely exaining to you the methodology. And the thinking that is what you do not understand. People were saying that there was a 4% hit to gdp and this was said by the obr. Thisnks not true The obr said they out together 13 forecasts and they averaged out over 15 years a 4% drop in gdp from leaving vs remain That's it. That's what the obr said. I read the forecasts and the assumptions. For example the world Bank assumed not trade deal and trade on mfn( i knkw this becaus ei read it). We now know thisnisnt the case. So the world Bank forecast is out. We know the bofe forecast ( again I know this because I read it) that productivity would slow and impact gdp because it assumes.ed we would enter net emigration. Again we know since their average migration used that in fact the uk didn't turn into net emigration but net immigration INCREASED I am not saying anything different to the OBR. The OBR put together these forecasts, Averaged them to 4% it made bo comment on the validity and accuracy of the assumptions. Assumption we bow have the data/ agreements to disprove. Again with cptpp. I am merely pointing out to you the methodology. That is assumes 0.08 % growth on a static model. We know that it doesn't account for new industrial exports thay have never had a market before. We know it doesn't account for any new members for 15 years. But we also know that south Korea and Thailand have applied to join. I merely point out I the assumption that tmif they do join thay 0.08 becomes 2.4% You seem angry at me explaining how these things are calculated because I bothered my arse to read them No… you said that the 0.08% would triple with the inclusion of Thailand and South Korea…. 0.08 x 3……. 0.24! " Typos happen. I hadn't read that claim if it had been made previously. Even that seems a stretch. Add two more countries to a group of 11, one of which we already have an FTA with and the return triples? I'm sure we'll find out how. It's all about reading the documents carefully and not reinterpreting them in any way... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very interesting that the OPs very clever houses of cards about the zero effect of Brexit and the enormously positive effect of the CPTPP have not been constructed and published by anybody else anywhere. They have been extrapolated from deeply buried reports so all of the data is, apparently there to see, but nobody else has. Nobody else put these clues together. Certainly nobody has published them. Not any of the Brexit supporting papers, Brexit supporting "think tanks" and economists. There have been absolutely no negative economic consequences of Brexit. There was no benefit in being a member of this huge free market, but apparently there is a huge benefit in joining some other free market much further away. Why is that? Oh no, a great many have read them. And understand them. Which is why we carry on with brexit and ftas. Regardless of those who kn these threads reply. " blah blah" at the breakdowns. Really? Why has nobody published the same conclusions as you have, saying that the OBR calculations of the penalty of leaving the EU is 4% of GDP since 2019 and a 0.08% gain over 10 years with CPTPP. Not even the Government who are very, very excited about it. Just point me to some analyses that draw the same conclusion as you. It would be good to read something coherent on the topic that explains the complete opposite. The obr published its methodology. I am quoting their report. I am quoting the government impact assessment. They are literally published. Please just read them Then you are, literally, reinterpreting the OBR are and Government figures. You are saying they don't understand their own data and are unable to present it properly, but you can. Correct? No I am not I am explaining their methodology. Which you do not understand. You are presenting the same data (that's what you said) and saying that the conclusions that they reached and numbers quoted should not be used anymore. In fact, the CPTPP data should never have been used as it indicates nothing useful. I don't "understand" their data in the way you would like me to. I get that very clearly. Leaving the EU caused no problems because interpretation of "methodology". Joining the CPTPP is brilliant because of interpretation of "methodology". Correct? I am presenting the same data. I am merely exaining to you the methodology. And the thinking that is what you do not understand. People were saying that there was a 4% hit to gdp and this was said by the obr. Thisnks not true The obr said they out together 13 forecasts and they averaged out over 15 years a 4% drop in gdp from leaving vs remain That's it. That's what the obr said. I read the forecasts and the assumptions. For example the world Bank assumed not trade deal and trade on mfn( i knkw this becaus ei read it). We now know thisnisnt the case. So the world Bank forecast is out. We know the bofe forecast ( again I know this because I read it) that productivity would slow and impact gdp because it assumes.ed we would enter net emigration. Again we know since their average migration used that in fact the uk didn't turn into net emigration but net immigration INCREASED I am not saying anything different to the OBR. The OBR put together these forecasts, Averaged them to 4% it made bo comment on the validity and accuracy of the assumptions. Assumption we bow have the data/ agreements to disprove. Again with cptpp. I am merely pointing out to you the methodology. That is assumes 0.08 % growth on a static model. We know that it doesn't account for new industrial exports thay have never had a market before. We know it doesn't account for any new members for 15 years. But we also know that south Korea and Thailand have applied to join. I merely point out I the assumption that tmif they do join thay 0.08 becomes 2.4% You seem angry at me explaining how these things are calculated because I bothered my arse to read them No… you said that the 0.08% would triple with the inclusion of Thailand and South Korea…. 0.08 x 3……. 0.24! Typos happen. I hadn't read that claim if it had been made previously. Even that seems a stretch. Add two more countries to a group of 11, one of which we already have an FTA with and the return triples? I'm sure we'll find out how. It's all about reading the documents carefully and not reinterpreting them in any way..." That’s why for all the gaff he wrote I used his worst case for the leaving the single market estimate against the best case entering the CPTPP estimare…. To prove the point that even for the thousand words he wrote.. a 1.8% GDP loss is not going to be made up by a 0.24% GDP gain….  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very interesting that the OPs very clever houses of cards about the zero effect of Brexit and the enormously positive effect of the CPTPP have not been constructed and published by anybody else anywhere. They have been extrapolated from deeply buried reports so all of the data is, apparently there to see, but nobody else has. Nobody else put these clues together. Certainly nobody has published them. Not any of the Brexit supporting papers, Brexit supporting "think tanks" and economists. There have been absolutely no negative economic consequences of Brexit. There was no benefit in being a member of this huge free market, but apparently there is a huge benefit in joining some other free market much further away. Why is that? Oh no, a great many have read them. And understand them. Which is why we carry on with brexit and ftas. Regardless of those who kn these threads reply. " blah blah" at the breakdowns. Really? Why has nobody published the same conclusions as you have, saying that the OBR calculations of the penalty of leaving the EU is 4% of GDP since 2019 and a 0.08% gain over 10 years with CPTPP. Not even the Government who are very, very excited about it. Just point me to some analyses that draw the same conclusion as you. It would be good to read something coherent on the topic that explains the complete opposite. The obr published its methodology. I am quoting their report. I am quoting the government impact assessment. They are literally published. Please just read them Then you are, literally, reinterpreting the OBR are and Government figures. You are saying they don't understand their own data and are unable to present it properly, but you can. Correct? No I am not I am explaining their methodology. Which you do not understand. You are presenting the same data (that's what you said) and saying that the conclusions that they reached and numbers quoted should not be used anymore. In fact, the CPTPP data should never have been used as it indicates nothing useful. I don't "understand" their data in the way you would like me to. I get that very clearly. Leaving the EU caused no problems because interpretation of "methodology". Joining the CPTPP is brilliant because of interpretation of "methodology". Correct? I am presenting the same data. I am merely exaining to you the methodology. And the thinking that is what you do not understand. People were saying that there was a 4% hit to gdp and this was said by the obr. Thisnks not true The obr said they out together 13 forecasts and they averaged out over 15 years a 4% drop in gdp from leaving vs remain That's it. That's what the obr said. I read the forecasts and the assumptions. For example the world Bank assumed not trade deal and trade on mfn( i knkw this becaus ei read it). We now know thisnisnt the case. So the world Bank forecast is out. We know the bofe forecast ( again I know this because I read it) that productivity would slow and impact gdp because it assumes.ed we would enter net emigration. Again we know since their average migration used that in fact the uk didn't turn into net emigration but net immigration INCREASED I am not saying anything different to the OBR. The OBR put together these forecasts, Averaged them to 4% it made bo comment on the validity and accuracy of the assumptions. Assumption we bow have the data/ agreements to disprove. Again with cptpp. I am merely pointing out to you the methodology. That is assumes 0.08 % growth on a static model. We know that it doesn't account for new industrial exports thay have never had a market before. We know it doesn't account for any new members for 15 years. But we also know that south Korea and Thailand have applied to join. I merely point out I the assumption that tmif they do join thay 0.08 becomes 2.4% You seem angry at me explaining how these things are calculated because I bothered my arse to read them I'm not angry with you, but interesting interpretation. You just seem unable to communicate in a coherent way. It's taken you this long to organise your words to explain something that is perfectly understandable if, as you say, you read the reports. The OBR estimated a 4% reduction in GDP due to Brexit. There is nothing inherently wrong with the models which they chose to take an average of. They have clearly stated that estimate that a 1.6% fall had already taken place before the TCA. Not projected. Happened. They have clearly stated that the final form of the TCA does not change the original estimate. The only substantive difference is for immigration which will reduce the loss by an unquantified amount. Ultimately all you have said is that the loss from Brexit is less than 4% GDP over 15 years based purely on this analysis. You don't know by how much although 1.6% has already occured. It doesn't take into account the UK no longer being an attractive point of access to the EU for industrial and financial investment etc. The CPTPP figure of 0.08% is tiny. Neither you, nor anybody else has a better figure though. Are you able to provide any study that provides and upper bound? You also just asserted that two more countries joining a group of 11 will increase our GDP by a further 2.32% 11 countries +0.08% 13 countries +2.40% Data from where? We already have a free trade deal with one of them. South Korea. The Government estimated that the free trade deal with Japan (a larger economy) was only worth 0.1% GDP over 15 years. The conclusion from all of this seems to be that the estimated loss from leaving the EU is significantly larger than the estimated benefit from joining the CPTPP (unless you can show otherwise) with no likelihood of inward investment to the UK for access to a Pacific trading group. However your consistent message has been that there has been no significant loss to the UK in leaving the UK and that there is a major benefit in joining the CPTPP. No other organisation seems to believe this other than the UK Government and some elements of the British press although that requires ignoring their own figures." Again. It's NOT an obr estimate. The OBR simply put 13 other estimates together and averaged them out. How many times do you have to be told? You acknowledge then that the assumptions in those estimations were wrong. As I have explained to you? That immigration increased and that we attained an fta with e.u? The obr said that the front load of the estimations had taken place. But this isn't actually realised. They are reporting that, the papers they averaged out believed it was front ended. And they have done a calculation on this across the average. They haven't said it actually happened. You mention it doesn't take in to account the uk no longer being attractive..actually all the papers do take thay into account. As they calculated foreign direct investment too.try actually reading them. Again you highlight your ignorance of having ot read them. This is getting REALLY EMBARRASING now for you that you continually show you haven't read nor comprehended the OBR report or the papers that it was based on. The data for the extra 2 coutnrie is in the uk cltpp accession paper.( again though..highlight more to us that you haven't read the things you quote)
Again re we already have a trade deal with one of them.
In the exact same impact report you HAVE NOT READ you will see how cptpp goes further. You will see these are Government figures.
Yes the ESTIMATED loss is bigger.
Thays the point...estimated in 2016-2018 in 13 papers. Which decided thay the immigration would fall to emigration ( we know this didn't happen)
That the uk would fall back on MFN termsfor trading with e.u( we know this not to be true)
So yes they were estimates...estimates thay got their variables HORRIBLY wrong.
Cptpp isn't meant to recover any lost transactions with the e.u that is what the TCA is for.
Cptpp is simply mean to progress out trade even further.
My message has been there certainly been an effect. I've said time and again. We saw tbay effect early on in 2020 and 2021, and the drop in fdi.
But given that the long term. Effect were based around not TCA agreement and no immigration. We know the assumptions to be cobblers.
Seriously just go read the 13 documents and just read the actual OBR report because you quote it enough. You should have actually comprehended it by now.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very interesting that the OPs very clever houses of cards about the zero effect of Brexit and the enormously positive effect of the CPTPP have not been constructed and published by anybody else anywhere. They have been extrapolated from deeply buried reports so all of the data is, apparently there to see, but nobody else has. Nobody else put these clues together. Certainly nobody has published them. Not any of the Brexit supporting papers, Brexit supporting "think tanks" and economists. There have been absolutely no negative economic consequences of Brexit. There was no benefit in being a member of this huge free market, but apparently there is a huge benefit in joining some other free market much further away. Why is that? Oh no, a great many have read them. And understand them. Which is why we carry on with brexit and ftas. Regardless of those who kn these threads reply. " blah blah" at the breakdowns. Really? Why has nobody published the same conclusions as you have, saying that the OBR calculations of the penalty of leaving the EU is 4% of GDP since 2019 and a 0.08% gain over 10 years with CPTPP. Not even the Government who are very, very excited about it. Just point me to some analyses that draw the same conclusion as you. It would be good to read something coherent on the topic that explains the complete opposite. The obr published its methodology. I am quoting their report. I am quoting the government impact assessment. They are literally published. Please just read them Then you are, literally, reinterpreting the OBR are and Government figures. You are saying they don't understand their own data and are unable to present it properly, but you can. Correct? No I am not I am explaining their methodology. Which you do not understand. You are presenting the same data (that's what you said) and saying that the conclusions that they reached and numbers quoted should not be used anymore. In fact, the CPTPP data should never have been used as it indicates nothing useful. I don't "understand" their data in the way you would like me to. I get that very clearly. Leaving the EU caused no problems because interpretation of "methodology". Joining the CPTPP is brilliant because of interpretation of "methodology". Correct? I am presenting the same data. I am merely exaining to you the methodology. And the thinking that is what you do not understand. People were saying that there was a 4% hit to gdp and this was said by the obr. Thisnks not true The obr said they out together 13 forecasts and they averaged out over 15 years a 4% drop in gdp from leaving vs remain That's it. That's what the obr said. I read the forecasts and the assumptions. For example the world Bank assumed not trade deal and trade on mfn( i knkw this becaus ei read it). We now know thisnisnt the case. So the world Bank forecast is out. We know the bofe forecast ( again I know this because I read it) that productivity would slow and impact gdp because it assumes.ed we would enter net emigration. Again we know since their average migration used that in fact the uk didn't turn into net emigration but net immigration INCREASED I am not saying anything different to the OBR. The OBR put together these forecasts, Averaged them to 4% it made bo comment on the validity and accuracy of the assumptions. Assumption we bow have the data/ agreements to disprove. Again with cptpp. I am merely pointing out to you the methodology. That is assumes 0.08 % growth on a static model. We know that it doesn't account for new industrial exports thay have never had a market before. We know it doesn't account for any new members for 15 years. But we also know that south Korea and Thailand have applied to join. I merely point out I the assumption that tmif they do join thay 0.08 becomes 2.4% You seem angry at me explaining how these things are calculated because I bothered my arse to read them No… you said that the 0.08% would triple with the inclusion of Thailand and South Korea…. 0.08 x 3……. 0.24! Typos happen. I hadn't read that claim if it had been made previously. Even that seems a stretch. Add two more countries to a group of 11, one of which we already have an FTA with and the return triples? I'm sure we'll find out how. It's all about reading the documents carefully and not reinterpreting them in any way... That’s why for all the gaff he wrote I used his worst case for the leaving the single market estimate against the best case entering the CPTPP estimare…. To prove the point that even for the thousand words he wrote.. a 1.8% GDP loss is not going to be made up by a 0.24% GDP gain…. "No. Thats whay the TCA is for. The assumptions don't take it into account. How can you take into account in 2016-2018 papers and agreement you don't know the terms of as it wasn't agreed until 2020? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This 4% that is often quoted, has it actually happened or is it predicted to happen. If it's not happened yet (seems some now say 1.5%ish has happened) what's due to change that will Increase it to 4%. I'm not saying the figure is right or wrong but just trying to understand it as its sometimes said here that 4% has happened as though it's a fact " According to the OBR, GDP will be 4% worse off 'in the long run'. Some say long run is 14 years but I'm not clear on that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This has to be the most bollocksly aggressive cock waving thread on the Fab Politics room in quite a while. I take my hat off to posters who seem to know than even Kemi Bradendoch knows about the latest “world leading” trade deal and conjour up fantastically positive outcomes whilst demonstrably ignoring geography (and common sense). Meanwhile - most people in this country have seen a huge drop in their standard of living, inward investment into the U.K. has been stalled for seven years, the cost of living crisis is being made worse by high inflation and out of control energy prices and we have a Government and it’s client journalist gaslighting the population on an industrial scale. 1%, 2% … any percentage. It’s all bollocks to the vast majority of ordinary people who are actually responsible for making our own economy work, or not. Enable a structure where ordinary people can spend money and the economy will go like a rocket because ordinary people spend their money locally. Help ordinary people and get to fuck with the millionaires and billionaires who salt their wealth into the Cayman Islands and buy luxury yachts and villas in tax havens. Failing government, failing economic policies - in fact, failing at everything. " But bollocksy cock waving you mean. Some 1 actually bothered to read things and try to comprehend and thatbother people who didnt are being shown up? Sadly high inflation, energy prices etc are a global issue nothing to domwith brezit. As food inflation, energy inflation, in the e.u and rest of world indicate. Sadly when you print money and then leave it in the economy this is what happens. Inflation runs riot and your wage doesn't go as far. If you think this government is failing because its enacted the same policies as the e u and every e.u country then you might just be a brexiteer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This 4% that is often quoted, has it actually happened or is it predicted to happen. If it's not happened yet (seems some now say 1.5%ish has happened) what's due to change that will Increase it to 4%. I'm not saying the figure is right or wrong but just trying to understand it as its sometimes said here that 4% has happened as though it's a fact " They know they're lying when they use it. I explained it all on here several months ago. Before getting banned for posting the links to how they were quantified annoyed me too much. That is the really sad thing. That they've perpetuated what they know to be a lie. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This 4% that is often quoted, has it actually happened or is it predicted to happen. If it's not happened yet (seems some now say 1.5%ish has happened) what's due to change that will Increase it to 4%. I'm not saying the figure is right or wrong but just trying to understand it as its sometimes said here that 4% has happened as though it's a fact " a quick skim. The 1.4pc to date is a reduction in productivity plus lower investment. The future reductions is from non tariff barriers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“"Precisely ….those Brexiteers so keen on self determination and sovereignty are more than willing for us to ceed sovereignty under these trade deals …. without democratic accountability- quelle surprise ????? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very interesting that the OPs very clever houses of cards about the zero effect of Brexit and the enormously positive effect of the CPTPP have not been constructed and published by anybody else anywhere. They have been extrapolated from deeply buried reports so all of the data is, apparently there to see, but nobody else has. Nobody else put these clues together. Certainly nobody has published them. Not any of the Brexit supporting papers, Brexit supporting "think tanks" and economists. There have been absolutely no negative economic consequences of Brexit. There was no benefit in being a member of this huge free market, but apparently there is a huge benefit in joining some other free market much further away. Why is that? Oh no, a great many have read them. And understand them. Which is why we carry on with brexit and ftas. Regardless of those who kn these threads reply. " blah blah" at the breakdowns. Really? Why has nobody published the same conclusions as you have, saying that the OBR calculations of the penalty of leaving the EU is 4% of GDP since 2019 and a 0.08% gain over 10 years with CPTPP. Not even the Government who are very, very excited about it. Just point me to some analyses that draw the same conclusion as you. It would be good to read something coherent on the topic that explains the complete opposite. The obr published its methodology. I am quoting their report. I am quoting the government impact assessment. They are literally published. Please just read them Then you are, literally, reinterpreting the OBR are and Government figures. You are saying they don't understand their own data and are unable to present it properly, but you can. Correct? No I am not I am explaining their methodology. Which you do not understand. You are presenting the same data (that's what you said) and saying that the conclusions that they reached and numbers quoted should not be used anymore. In fact, the CPTPP data should never have been used as it indicates nothing useful. I don't "understand" their data in the way you would like me to. I get that very clearly. Leaving the EU caused no problems because interpretation of "methodology". Joining the CPTPP is brilliant because of interpretation of "methodology". Correct? I am presenting the same data. I am merely exaining to you the methodology. And the thinking that is what you do not understand. People were saying that there was a 4% hit to gdp and this was said by the obr. Thisnks not true The obr said they out together 13 forecasts and they averaged out over 15 years a 4% drop in gdp from leaving vs remain That's it. That's what the obr said. I read the forecasts and the assumptions. For example the world Bank assumed not trade deal and trade on mfn( i knkw this becaus ei read it). We now know thisnisnt the case. So the world Bank forecast is out. We know the bofe forecast ( again I know this because I read it) that productivity would slow and impact gdp because it assumes.ed we would enter net emigration. Again we know since their average migration used that in fact the uk didn't turn into net emigration but net immigration INCREASED I am not saying anything different to the OBR. The OBR put together these forecasts, Averaged them to 4% it made bo comment on the validity and accuracy of the assumptions. Assumption we bow have the data/ agreements to disprove. Again with cptpp. I am merely pointing out to you the methodology. That is assumes 0.08 % growth on a static model. We know that it doesn't account for new industrial exports thay have never had a market before. We know it doesn't account for any new members for 15 years. But we also know that south Korea and Thailand have applied to join. I merely point out I the assumption that tmif they do join thay 0.08 becomes 2.4% You seem angry at me explaining how these things are calculated because I bothered my arse to read them I'm not angry with you, but interesting interpretation. You just seem unable to communicate in a coherent way. It's taken you this long to organise your words to explain something that is perfectly understandable if, as you say, you read the reports. The OBR estimated a 4% reduction in GDP due to Brexit. There is nothing inherently wrong with the models which they chose to take an average of. They have clearly stated that estimate that a 1.6% fall had already taken place before the TCA. Not projected. Happened. They have clearly stated that the final form of the TCA does not change the original estimate. The only substantive difference is for immigration which will reduce the loss by an unquantified amount. Ultimately all you have said is that the loss from Brexit is less than 4% GDP over 15 years based purely on this analysis. You don't know by how much although 1.6% has already occured. It doesn't take into account the UK no longer being an attractive point of access to the EU for industrial and financial investment etc. The CPTPP figure of 0.08% is tiny. Neither you, nor anybody else has a better figure though. Are you able to provide any study that provides and upper bound? You also just asserted that two more countries joining a group of 11 will increase our GDP by a further 2.32% 11 countries +0.08% 13 countries +2.40% Data from where? We already have a free trade deal with one of them. South Korea. The Government estimated that the free trade deal with Japan (a larger economy) was only worth 0.1% GDP over 15 years. The conclusion from all of this seems to be that the estimated loss from leaving the EU is significantly larger than the estimated benefit from joining the CPTPP (unless you can show otherwise) with no likelihood of inward investment to the UK for access to a Pacific trading group. However your consistent message has been that there has been no significant loss to the UK in leaving the UK and that there is a major benefit in joining the CPTPP. No other organisation seems to believe this other than the UK Government and some elements of the British press although that requires ignoring their own figures. Again. It's NOT an obr estimate. The OBR simply put 13 other estimates together and averaged them out. How many times do you have to be told? You acknowledge then that the assumptions in those estimations were wrong. As I have explained to you? That immigration increased and that we attained an fta with e.u? The obr said that the front load of the estimations had taken place. But this isn't actually realised. They are reporting that, the papers they averaged out believed it was front ended. And they have done a calculation on this across the average. They haven't said it actually happened. You mention it doesn't take in to account the uk no longer being attractive..actually all the papers do take thay into account. As they calculated foreign direct investment too.try actually reading them. Again you highlight your ignorance of having ot read them. This is getting REALLY EMBARRASING now for you that you continually show you haven't read nor comprehended the OBR report or the papers that it was based on. The data for the extra 2 coutnrie is in the uk cltpp accession paper.( again though..highlight more to us that you haven't read the things you quote)
Again re we already have a trade deal with one of them.
In the exact same impact report you HAVE NOT READ you will see how cptpp goes further. You will see these are Government figures.
Yes the ESTIMATED loss is bigger.
Thays the point...estimated in 2016-2018 in 13 papers. Which decided thay the immigration would fall to emigration ( we know this didn't happen)
That the uk would fall back on MFN termsfor trading with e.u( we know this not to be true)
So yes they were estimates...estimates thay got their variables HORRIBLY wrong.
Cptpp isn't meant to recover any lost transactions with the e.u that is what the TCA is for.
Cptpp is simply mean to progress out trade even further.
My message has been there certainly been an effect. I've said time and again. We saw tbay effect early on in 2020 and 2021, and the drop in fdi.
But given that the long term. Effect were based around not TCA agreement and no immigration. We know the assumptions to be cobblers.
Seriously just go read the 13 documents and just read the actual OBR report because you quote it enough. You should have actually comprehended it by now.
"You seem to have got a little large caps ANGRY now. I think it might just be because you're struggling with your reading. I will write some direct quotes here for reference. I understand that you are not "reinterpreting" what the OBR has written, you are just "explaining the methodology" to be completely incorrect. Still, directly from the OBR: "Our assessment is that the TCA is broadly similar to the ‘typical’ FTAs assumed in those studies and reflected in our forecasts since March 2020." Does this mean that the OBR think that the estimates used assuming FTAs are pretty much the same as the TCA or something else? "We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening" Of course, they have used an average of a number of estimates made by other organisations. What does the OBR mean by "we estimate" in this context? 2/5 of 4% is 1.6% Is the the OBR saying that this has already happened when they state that the "impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force" or do they mean something else? From the IMF: "reduce...GDP by 0.6 percent in the FTA scenario." The FTA scenario is the one used by the OBR, so does the estimate need to be corrected by 0.6% or more? What about the other models? Any idea? Moving to the CPTPP report from the Department for International Trade. For some reason this was buried in a section on greenhouse gas emissions: "the estimated percentage increase in GDP, which is 0.08%." "For example, the boost to UK GDP is estimated to treble if Thailand and South Korea join the agreement." "Scenario 1 - Current CPTPP Membership Scenario 2 - CPTPP 13 (CPTPP 11 + Thailand + South Korea) Scenario 3 - CPTPP 14 (CPTPP 11 + Thailand + South Korea + USA)" "All three scenarios assume a baseline where the UK has already secured an FTA with the US." So, to be clear, even the tiny 0.08% increase in UK GDP assumes that the UK already has an FTA with the USA, which I don't believe that it does. Even then, 0.08% x 3 is only 0.24%. Also quite remarkable that such a large change can be achieved by two countries joining a group of eleven. Japan's FTA with the UK alone was only expected to improve our GDP by 0.07%. joining the CPTPP with 11 countries is 0.08%. That implies that the effect of the increased benefit is fairly limited. Perhaps you think otherwise. You should probably have som quiet time now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“
Precisely ….those Brexiteers so keen on self determination and sovereignty are more than willing for us to ceed sovereignty under these trade deals …. without democratic accountability- quelle surprise ?????"How do you cede sovereignty under a trade deal? That is precisely the problem with the EU. It started as a trade deal but morphed into an over-arching superstate. Let's grab the opportunity of trade deals and get on with it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“
Precisely ….those Brexiteers so keen on self determination and sovereignty are more than willing for us to ceed sovereignty under these trade deals …. without democratic accountability- quelle surprise ?????
How do you cede sovereignty under a trade deal? That is precisely the problem with the EU. It started as a trade deal but morphed into an over-arching superstate. Let's grab the opportunity of trade deals and get on with it."It depends on your definition of sovereignty. If having a seat at the table (every table) developing rules and regulations together that you then apply to all countries including your own is considered a loss of sovereignty then both the EU and CPTPP represents an issue for you. The idea that the EU made the UK do anything is nonsense. We worked together and were part of the club. The actual number of rules or regulations that were detrimental to any group within the UK were minuscule and totally outweighed by the benefits. It was the same for every country, it is called compromise and is necessary to harmonise standards etc to enable free trade. The UK was one of the three big fish in the EU pond. 2nd biggest economy. Most powerful military. Not in Euro. Outside Schengen. Veto. The idea poor little Bwitain was bullied by big bad EU is rubbish. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This 4% that is often quoted, has it actually happened or is it predicted to happen. If it's not happened yet (seems some now say 1.5%ish has happened) what's due to change that will Increase it to 4%. I'm not saying the figure is right or wrong but just trying to understand it as its sometimes said here that 4% has happened as though it's a fact a quick skim. The 1.4pc to date is a reduction in productivity plus lower investment. The future reductions is from non tariff barriers. " Thank you. So if I were to say the UK has suffered a 4% hit to GDP already, would that statement be true? Or would a more accurate statement be, the UK has suffered a 1.4% hit with the possibility of that increasing in the future? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“
Precisely ….those Brexiteers so keen on self determination and sovereignty are more than willing for us to ceed sovereignty under these trade deals …. without democratic accountability- quelle surprise ?????
How do you cede sovereignty under a trade deal? That is precisely the problem with the EU. It started as a trade deal but morphed into an over-arching superstate. Let's grab the opportunity of trade deals and get on with it."If we are obligated to adhere to the existing rules of that trading agreement then we cede Sovereignty. Having a seat at the table that creates the rules and being involved in drafting those rules is not ceding sovereignty. This kind of argument was going on endlessly during (and after) the Brexit referendum. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“
Precisely ….those Brexiteers so keen on self determination and sovereignty are more than willing for us to ceed sovereignty under these trade deals …. without democratic accountability- quelle surprise ?????
How do you cede sovereignty under a trade deal? That is precisely the problem with the EU. It started as a trade deal but morphed into an over-arching superstate. Let's grab the opportunity of trade deals and get on with it."How is arbitration between a private corporation and a state settled in the CPTPP? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“
Precisely ….those Brexiteers so keen on self determination and sovereignty are more than willing for us to ceed sovereignty under these trade deals …. without democratic accountability- quelle surprise ?????
How do you cede sovereignty under a trade deal? That is precisely the problem with the EU. It started as a trade deal but morphed into an over-arching superstate. Let's grab the opportunity of trade deals and get on with it."Exactly you dont | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“
Precisely ….those Brexiteers so keen on self determination and sovereignty are more than willing for us to ceed sovereignty under these trade deals …. without democratic accountability- quelle surprise ?????
How do you cede sovereignty under a trade deal? That is precisely the problem with the EU. It started as a trade deal but morphed into an over-arching superstate. Let's grab the opportunity of trade deals and get on with it.
If we are obligated to adhere to the existing rules of that trading agreement then we cede Sovereignty. Having a seat at the table that creates the rules and being involved in drafting those rules is not ceding sovereignty.
This kind of argument was going on endlessly during (and after) the Brexit referendum."Whay domestic law has changed due to cptpp? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“
Precisely ….those Brexiteers so keen on self determination and sovereignty are more than willing for us to ceed sovereignty under these trade deals …. without democratic accountability- quelle surprise ?????
How do you cede sovereignty under a trade deal? That is precisely the problem with the EU. It started as a trade deal but morphed into an over-arching superstate. Let's grab the opportunity of trade deals and get on with it.
How is arbitration between a private corporation and a state settled in the CPTPP?"Thats not sovereignty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very interesting that the OPs very clever houses of cards about the zero effect of Brexit and the enormously positive effect of the CPTPP have not been constructed and published by anybody else anywhere. They have been extrapolated from deeply buried reports so all of the data is, apparently there to see, but nobody else has. Nobody else put these clues together. Certainly nobody has published them. Not any of the Brexit supporting papers, Brexit supporting "think tanks" and economists. There have been absolutely no negative economic consequences of Brexit. There was no benefit in being a member of this huge free market, but apparently there is a huge benefit in joining some other free market much further away. Why is that? Oh no, a great many have read them. And understand them. Which is why we carry on with brexit and ftas. Regardless of those who kn these threads reply. " blah blah" at the breakdowns. Really? Why has nobody published the same conclusions as you have, saying that the OBR calculations of the penalty of leaving the EU is 4% of GDP since 2019 and a 0.08% gain over 10 years with CPTPP. Not even the Government who are very, very excited about it. Just point me to some analyses that draw the same conclusion as you. It would be good to read something coherent on the topic that explains the complete opposite. The obr published its methodology. I am quoting their report. I am quoting the government impact assessment. They are literally published. Please just read them Then you are, literally, reinterpreting the OBR are and Government figures. You are saying they don't understand their own data and are unable to present it properly, but you can. Correct? No I am not I am explaining their methodology. Which you do not understand. You are presenting the same data (that's what you said) and saying that the conclusions that they reached and numbers quoted should not be used anymore. In fact, the CPTPP data should never have been used as it indicates nothing useful. I don't "understand" their data in the way you would like me to. I get that very clearly. Leaving the EU caused no problems because interpretation of "methodology". Joining the CPTPP is brilliant because of interpretation of "methodology". Correct? I am presenting the same data. I am merely exaining to you the methodology. And the thinking that is what you do not understand. People were saying that there was a 4% hit to gdp and this was said by the obr. Thisnks not true The obr said they out together 13 forecasts and they averaged out over 15 years a 4% drop in gdp from leaving vs remain That's it. That's what the obr said. I read the forecasts and the assumptions. For example the world Bank assumed not trade deal and trade on mfn( i knkw this becaus ei read it). We now know thisnisnt the case. So the world Bank forecast is out. We know the bofe forecast ( again I know this because I read it) that productivity would slow and impact gdp because it assumes.ed we would enter net emigration. Again we know since their average migration used that in fact the uk didn't turn into net emigration but net immigration INCREASED I am not saying anything different to the OBR. The OBR put together these forecasts, Averaged them to 4% it made bo comment on the validity and accuracy of the assumptions. Assumption we bow have the data/ agreements to disprove. Again with cptpp. I am merely pointing out to you the methodology. That is assumes 0.08 % growth on a static model. We know that it doesn't account for new industrial exports thay have never had a market before. We know it doesn't account for any new members for 15 years. But we also know that south Korea and Thailand have applied to join. I merely point out I the assumption that tmif they do join thay 0.08 becomes 2.4% You seem angry at me explaining how these things are calculated because I bothered my arse to read them I'm not angry with you, but interesting interpretation. You just seem unable to communicate in a coherent way. It's taken you this long to organise your words to explain something that is perfectly understandable if, as you say, you read the reports. The OBR estimated a 4% reduction in GDP due to Brexit. There is nothing inherently wrong with the models which they chose to take an average of. They have clearly stated that estimate that a 1.6% fall had already taken place before the TCA. Not projected. Happened. They have clearly stated that the final form of the TCA does not change the original estimate. The only substantive difference is for immigration which will reduce the loss by an unquantified amount. Ultimately all you have said is that the loss from Brexit is less than 4% GDP over 15 years based purely on this analysis. You don't know by how much although 1.6% has already occured. It doesn't take into account the UK no longer being an attractive point of access to the EU for industrial and financial investment etc. The CPTPP figure of 0.08% is tiny. Neither you, nor anybody else has a better figure though. Are you able to provide any study that provides and upper bound? You also just asserted that two more countries joining a group of 11 will increase our GDP by a further 2.32% 11 countries +0.08% 13 countries +2.40% Data from where? We already have a free trade deal with one of them. South Korea. The Government estimated that the free trade deal with Japan (a larger economy) was only worth 0.1% GDP over 15 years. The conclusion from all of this seems to be that the estimated loss from leaving the EU is significantly larger than the estimated benefit from joining the CPTPP (unless you can show otherwise) with no likelihood of inward investment to the UK for access to a Pacific trading group. However your consistent message has been that there has been no significant loss to the UK in leaving the UK and that there is a major benefit in joining the CPTPP. No other organisation seems to believe this other than the UK Government and some elements of the British press although that requires ignoring their own figures. Again. It's NOT an obr estimate. The OBR simply put 13 other estimates together and averaged them out. How many times do you have to be told? You acknowledge then that the assumptions in those estimations were wrong. As I have explained to you? That immigration increased and that we attained an fta with e.u? The obr said that the front load of the estimations had taken place. But this isn't actually realised. They are reporting that, the papers they averaged out believed it was front ended. And they have done a calculation on this across the average. They haven't said it actually happened. You mention it doesn't take in to account the uk no longer being attractive..actually all the papers do take thay into account. As they calculated foreign direct investment too.try actually reading them. Again you highlight your ignorance of having ot read them. This is getting REALLY EMBARRASING now for you that you continually show you haven't read nor comprehended the OBR report or the papers that it was based on. The data for the extra 2 coutnrie is in the uk cltpp accession paper.( again though..highlight more to us that you haven't read the things you quote)
Again re we already have a trade deal with one of them.
In the exact same impact report you HAVE NOT READ you will see how cptpp goes further. You will see these are Government figures.
Yes the ESTIMATED loss is bigger.
Thays the point...estimated in 2016-2018 in 13 papers. Which decided thay the immigration would fall to emigration ( we know this didn't happen)
That the uk would fall back on MFN termsfor trading with e.u( we know this not to be true)
So yes they were estimates...estimates thay got their variables HORRIBLY wrong.
Cptpp isn't meant to recover any lost transactions with the e.u that is what the TCA is for.
Cptpp is simply mean to progress out trade even further.
My message has been there certainly been an effect. I've said time and again. We saw tbay effect early on in 2020 and 2021, and the drop in fdi.
But given that the long term. Effect were based around not TCA agreement and no immigration. We know the assumptions to be cobblers.
Seriously just go read the 13 documents and just read the actual OBR report because you quote it enough. You should have actually comprehended it by now.
You seem to have got a little large caps ANGRY now.
I think it might just be because you're struggling with your reading.
I will write some direct quotes here for reference. I understand that you are not "reinterpreting" what the OBR has written, you are just "explaining the methodology" to be completely incorrect.
Still, directly from the OBR:
"Our assessment is that the TCA is broadly similar to the ‘typical’ FTAs assumed in those studies and reflected in our forecasts since March 2020."
Does this mean that the OBR think that the estimates used assuming FTAs are pretty much the same as the TCA or something else?
"We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening"
Of course, they have used an average of a number of estimates made by other organisations. What does the OBR mean by "we estimate" in this context?
2/5 of 4% is 1.6% Is the the OBR saying that this has already happened when they state that the "impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force" or do they mean something else?
From the IMF:
"reduce...GDP by 0.6 percent in the
FTA scenario."
The FTA scenario is the one used by the OBR, so does the estimate need to be corrected by 0.6% or more? What about the other models? Any idea?
Moving to the CPTPP report from the Department for International Trade.
For some reason this was buried in a section on greenhouse gas emissions:
"the estimated percentage increase in GDP, which is 0.08%."
"For example, the boost to UK GDP is estimated to treble if Thailand and South Korea join the agreement."
"Scenario 1 - Current
CPTPP Membership
Scenario 2 - CPTPP 13 (CPTPP 11 +
Thailand + South Korea)
Scenario 3 - CPTPP 14 (CPTPP 11 +
Thailand + South Korea
+ USA)"
"All three scenarios assume a baseline where the UK has already secured an FTA with the US."
So, to be clear, even the tiny 0.08% increase in UK GDP assumes that the UK already has an FTA with the USA, which I don't believe that it does.
Even then, 0.08% x 3 is only 0.24%. Also quite remarkable that such a large change can be achieved by two countries joining a group of eleven. Japan's FTA with the UK alone was only expected to improve our GDP by 0.07%. joining the CPTPP with 11 countries is 0.08%. That implies that the effect of the increased benefit is fairly limited. Perhaps you think otherwise.
You should probably have som quiet time now.
"Caps are to draw your attention to things so you can begin to understand. Yes the OBR says it feels the assumptions are in line with its expectations. The problem being. How many people in these threads like admitting they're wrong? The obr was out by 30bn for government borrowing last year it overshot its estimations. Thats just 1 year imagine 15 years. Good point on tbe o r saying their assumption of the tca is its broadly in line with assumptions. But we know one of those assumptions was the uk would have an fta. So how do you recocnile the obr is happy with the assumptions of ftas when one didn't include and fta? We might be getting somewhere here. No. The 0.08% doesn't assume an fta with America. I would try reading that again. As you allude that's a mighty jump if South Korea and Thailand join and we have an fta with one of them. You asked what's the point in cptpp if we have trade agreements. There's your proof it goes further.we have an fta yet if they join cptpp thay gdp increase goes up 3 fold. Again. On these models. They assume a static approach for example if we don't sell insurance. It assumes we won't be granted accession to Insurance markets. Cptpp grants that access. Hopefully you can learn to read in the mean time | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This 4% that is often quoted, has it actually happened or is it predicted to happen. If it's not happened yet (seems some now say 1.5%ish has happened) what's due to change that will Increase it to 4%. I'm not saying the figure is right or wrong but just trying to understand it as its sometimes said here that 4% has happened as though it's a fact a quick skim. The 1.4pc to date is a reduction in productivity plus lower investment. The future reductions is from non tariff barriers. Thank you. So if I were to say the UK has suffered a 4% hit to GDP already, would that statement be true? Or would a more accurate statement be, the UK has suffered a 1.4% hit with the possibility of that increasing in the future?" The original estimates that the OBR used gave an average of a 4% reduction in UK GDP over 15 years. Of that approximately 1.6% has already been felt (2/5 of 4%), according to the OBR estimate of the results so far. So, about 2.4% to come. They also think that the FTA trade deal assumptions used to calculate this 4% average from the various organisations are valid under the final TCA based on the results so far. They don't seem to have provided a correction for the larger than expected (non-EU) immigration since Brexit. There is an IMF figure of 0.6% GDP loss under an FTA so it might be reasonable to assume that that should be added back. That would mean 3.4% overall loss over 15 years. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very interesting that the OPs very clever houses of cards about the zero effect of Brexit and the enormously positive effect of the CPTPP have not been constructed and published by anybody else anywhere. They have been extrapolated from deeply buried reports so all of the data is, apparently there to see, but nobody else has. Nobody else put these clues together. Certainly nobody has published them. Not any of the Brexit supporting papers, Brexit supporting "think tanks" and economists. There have been absolutely no negative economic consequences of Brexit. There was no benefit in being a member of this huge free market, but apparently there is a huge benefit in joining some other free market much further away. Why is that? Oh no, a great many have read them. And understand them. Which is why we carry on with brexit and ftas. Regardless of those who kn these threads reply. " blah blah" at the breakdowns. Really? Why has nobody published the same conclusions as you have, saying that the OBR calculations of the penalty of leaving the EU is 4% of GDP since 2019 and a 0.08% gain over 10 years with CPTPP. Not even the Government who are very, very excited about it. Just point me to some analyses that draw the same conclusion as you. It would be good to read something coherent on the topic that explains the complete opposite. The obr published its methodology. I am quoting their report. I am quoting the government impact assessment. They are literally published. Please just read them Then you are, literally, reinterpreting the OBR are and Government figures. You are saying they don't understand their own data and are unable to present it properly, but you can. Correct? No I am not I am explaining their methodology. Which you do not understand. You are presenting the same data (that's what you said) and saying that the conclusions that they reached and numbers quoted should not be used anymore. In fact, the CPTPP data should never have been used as it indicates nothing useful. I don't "understand" their data in the way you would like me to. I get that very clearly. Leaving the EU caused no problems because interpretation of "methodology". Joining the CPTPP is brilliant because of interpretation of "methodology". Correct? I am presenting the same data. I am merely exaining to you the methodology. And the thinking that is what you do not understand. People were saying that there was a 4% hit to gdp and this was said by the obr. Thisnks not true The obr said they out together 13 forecasts and they averaged out over 15 years a 4% drop in gdp from leaving vs remain That's it. That's what the obr said. I read the forecasts and the assumptions. For example the world Bank assumed not trade deal and trade on mfn( i knkw this becaus ei read it). We now know thisnisnt the case. So the world Bank forecast is out. We know the bofe forecast ( again I know this because I read it) that productivity would slow and impact gdp because it assumes.ed we would enter net emigration. Again we know since their average migration used that in fact the uk didn't turn into net emigration but net immigration INCREASED I am not saying anything different to the OBR. The OBR put together these forecasts, Averaged them to 4% it made bo comment on the validity and accuracy of the assumptions. Assumption we bow have the data/ agreements to disprove. Again with cptpp. I am merely pointing out to you the methodology. That is assumes 0.08 % growth on a static model. We know that it doesn't account for new industrial exports thay have never had a market before. We know it doesn't account for any new members for 15 years. But we also know that south Korea and Thailand have applied to join. I merely point out I the assumption that tmif they do join thay 0.08 becomes 2.4% You seem angry at me explaining how these things are calculated because I bothered my arse to read them I'm not angry with you, but interesting interpretation. You just seem unable to communicate in a coherent way. It's taken you this long to organise your words to explain something that is perfectly understandable if, as you say, you read the reports. The OBR estimated a 4% reduction in GDP due to Brexit. There is nothing inherently wrong with the models which they chose to take an average of. They have clearly stated that estimate that a 1.6% fall had already taken place before the TCA. Not projected. Happened. They have clearly stated that the final form of the TCA does not change the original estimate. The only substantive difference is for immigration which will reduce the loss by an unquantified amount. Ultimately all you have said is that the loss from Brexit is less than 4% GDP over 15 years based purely on this analysis. You don't know by how much although 1.6% has already occured. It doesn't take into account the UK no longer being an attractive point of access to the EU for industrial and financial investment etc. The CPTPP figure of 0.08% is tiny. Neither you, nor anybody else has a better figure though. Are you able to provide any study that provides and upper bound? You also just asserted that two more countries joining a group of 11 will increase our GDP by a further 2.32% 11 countries +0.08% 13 countries +2.40% Data from where? We already have a free trade deal with one of them. South Korea. The Government estimated that the free trade deal with Japan (a larger economy) was only worth 0.1% GDP over 15 years. The conclusion from all of this seems to be that the estimated loss from leaving the EU is significantly larger than the estimated benefit from joining the CPTPP (unless you can show otherwise) with no likelihood of inward investment to the UK for access to a Pacific trading group. However your consistent message has been that there has been no significant loss to the UK in leaving the UK and that there is a major benefit in joining the CPTPP. No other organisation seems to believe this other than the UK Government and some elements of the British press although that requires ignoring their own figures. Again. It's NOT an obr estimate. The OBR simply put 13 other estimates together and averaged them out. How many times do you have to be told? You acknowledge then that the assumptions in those estimations were wrong. As I have explained to you? That immigration increased and that we attained an fta with e.u? The obr said that the front load of the estimations had taken place. But this isn't actually realised. They are reporting that, the papers they averaged out believed it was front ended. And they have done a calculation on this across the average. They haven't said it actually happened. You mention it doesn't take in to account the uk no longer being attractive..actually all the papers do take thay into account. As they calculated foreign direct investment too.try actually reading them. Again you highlight your ignorance of having ot read them. This is getting REALLY EMBARRASING now for you that you continually show you haven't read nor comprehended the OBR report or the papers that it was based on. The data for the extra 2 coutnrie is in the uk cltpp accession paper.( again though..highlight more to us that you haven't read the things you quote)
Again re we already have a trade deal with one of them.
In the exact same impact report you HAVE NOT READ you will see how cptpp goes further. You will see these are Government figures.
Yes the ESTIMATED loss is bigger.
Thays the point...estimated in 2016-2018 in 13 papers. Which decided thay the immigration would fall to emigration ( we know this didn't happen)
That the uk would fall back on MFN termsfor trading with e.u( we know this not to be true)
So yes they were estimates...estimates thay got their variables HORRIBLY wrong.
Cptpp isn't meant to recover any lost transactions with the e.u that is what the TCA is for.
Cptpp is simply mean to progress out trade even further.
My message has been there certainly been an effect. I've said time and again. We saw tbay effect early on in 2020 and 2021, and the drop in fdi.
But given that the long term. Effect were based around not TCA agreement and no immigration. We know the assumptions to be cobblers.
Seriously just go read the 13 documents and just read the actual OBR report because you quote it enough. You should have actually comprehended it by now.
You seem to have got a little large caps ANGRY now.
I think it might just be because you're struggling with your reading.
I will write some direct quotes here for reference. I understand that you are not "reinterpreting" what the OBR has written, you are just "explaining the methodology" to be completely incorrect.
Still, directly from the OBR:
"Our assessment is that the TCA is broadly similar to the ‘typical’ FTAs assumed in those studies and reflected in our forecasts since March 2020."
Does this mean that the OBR think that the estimates used assuming FTAs are pretty much the same as the TCA or something else?
"We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening"
Of course, they have used an average of a number of estimates made by other organisations. What does the OBR mean by "we estimate" in this context?
2/5 of 4% is 1.6% Is the the OBR saying that this has already happened when they state that the "impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force" or do they mean something else?
From the IMF:
"reduce...GDP by 0.6 percent in the
FTA scenario."
The FTA scenario is the one used by the OBR, so does the estimate need to be corrected by 0.6% or more? What about the other models? Any idea?
Moving to the CPTPP report from the Department for International Trade.
For some reason this was buried in a section on greenhouse gas emissions:
"the estimated percentage increase in GDP, which is 0.08%."
"For example, the boost to UK GDP is estimated to treble if Thailand and South Korea join the agreement."
"Scenario 1 - Current
CPTPP Membership
Scenario 2 - CPTPP 13 (CPTPP 11 +
Thailand + South Korea)
Scenario 3 - CPTPP 14 (CPTPP 11 +
Thailand + South Korea
+ USA)"
"All three scenarios assume a baseline where the UK has already secured an FTA with the US."
So, to be clear, even the tiny 0.08% increase in UK GDP assumes that the UK already has an FTA with the USA, which I don't believe that it does.
Even then, 0.08% x 3 is only 0.24%. Also quite remarkable that such a large change can be achieved by two countries joining a group of eleven. Japan's FTA with the UK alone was only expected to improve our GDP by 0.07%. joining the CPTPP with 11 countries is 0.08%. That implies that the effect of the increased benefit is fairly limited. Perhaps you think otherwise.
You should probably have som quiet time now.
"Oh Jesus. You really do need to learn to read. "All three scenarios assume a baseline where the UK has already secured an FTA with the US. Therefore, UK GDP does not increase further between CPTPP 13 and CPTPP 14 when the US accedes to CPTPP. In the case where US joins the agreement and the UK does not have a bilateral agreement, UK GDP is estimated to increase by £19.7bn in the long run." How many countries are in cptpp again?
The three scenarios are the confidence levels in the graph above here 90% 70% 50%
Probably time you took a break | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“
Precisely ….those Brexiteers so keen on self determination and sovereignty are more than willing for us to ceed sovereignty under these trade deals …. without democratic accountability- quelle surprise ?????
How do you cede sovereignty under a trade deal? That is precisely the problem with the EU. It started as a trade deal but morphed into an over-arching superstate. Let's grab the opportunity of trade deals and get on with it.
How is arbitration between a private corporation and a state settled in the CPTPP?
Thats not sovereignty."A sovereign state can be sued, in private, if it introduces legislation that affects the profits of a private company. That directly affects the consideration of lawmaking in the UK. That is a loss of sovereignty. All trade deals reduce sovereignty as it contains freedom to do as we want with tariffs and other matters, depending on the nature of the deal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“
Precisely ….those Brexiteers so keen on self determination and sovereignty are more than willing for us to ceed sovereignty under these trade deals …. without democratic accountability- quelle surprise ?????
How do you cede sovereignty under a trade deal? That is precisely the problem with the EU. It started as a trade deal but morphed into an over-arching superstate. Let's grab the opportunity of trade deals and get on with it.
How is arbitration between a private corporation and a state settled in the CPTPP?
Thats not sovereignty.
A sovereign state can be sued, in private, if it introduces legislation that affects the profits of a private company.
That directly affects the consideration of lawmaking in the UK. That is a loss of sovereignty.
All trade deals reduce sovereignty as it contains freedom to do as we want with tariffs and other matters, depending on the nature of the deal."Sovereignty is the power of the state to government itself. If a state acts inappropriately in its own process a company can't take it to court on its own legal terms. That's been the point of the Branson legal case for virgin health and the glp lawsuits they lose vs the government procurement process for ppe. Fta deals don't affect your own governments ability to self govern. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very interesting that the OPs very clever houses of cards about the zero effect of Brexit and the enormously positive effect of the CPTPP have not been constructed and published by anybody else anywhere. They have been extrapolated from deeply buried reports so all of the data is, apparently there to see, but nobody else has. Nobody else put these clues together. Certainly nobody has published them. Not any of the Brexit supporting papers, Brexit supporting "think tanks" and economists. There have been absolutely no negative economic consequences of Brexit. There was no benefit in being a member of this huge free market, but apparently there is a huge benefit in joining some other free market much further away. Why is that? Oh no, a great many have read them. And understand them. Which is why we carry on with brexit and ftas. Regardless of those who kn these threads reply. " blah blah" at the breakdowns. Really? Why has nobody published the same conclusions as you have, saying that the OBR calculations of the penalty of leaving the EU is 4% of GDP since 2019 and a 0.08% gain over 10 years with CPTPP. Not even the Government who are very, very excited about it. Just point me to some analyses that draw the same conclusion as you. It would be good to read something coherent on the topic that explains the complete opposite. The obr published its methodology. I am quoting their report. I am quoting the government impact assessment. They are literally published. Please just read them Then you are, literally, reinterpreting the OBR are and Government figures. You are saying they don't understand their own data and are unable to present it properly, but you can. Correct? No I am not I am explaining their methodology. Which you do not understand. You are presenting the same data (that's what you said) and saying that the conclusions that they reached and numbers quoted should not be used anymore. In fact, the CPTPP data should never have been used as it indicates nothing useful. I don't "understand" their data in the way you would like me to. I get that very clearly. Leaving the EU caused no problems because interpretation of "methodology". Joining the CPTPP is brilliant because of interpretation of "methodology". Correct? I am presenting the same data. I am merely exaining to you the methodology. And the thinking that is what you do not understand. People were saying that there was a 4% hit to gdp and this was said by the obr. Thisnks not true The obr said they out together 13 forecasts and they averaged out over 15 years a 4% drop in gdp from leaving vs remain That's it. That's what the obr said. I read the forecasts and the assumptions. For example the world Bank assumed not trade deal and trade on mfn( i knkw this becaus ei read it). We now know thisnisnt the case. So the world Bank forecast is out. We know the bofe forecast ( again I know this because I read it) that productivity would slow and impact gdp because it assumes.ed we would enter net emigration. Again we know since their average migration used that in fact the uk didn't turn into net emigration but net immigration INCREASED I am not saying anything different to the OBR. The OBR put together these forecasts, Averaged them to 4% it made bo comment on the validity and accuracy of the assumptions. Assumption we bow have the data/ agreements to disprove. Again with cptpp. I am merely pointing out to you the methodology. That is assumes 0.08 % growth on a static model. We know that it doesn't account for new industrial exports thay have never had a market before. We know it doesn't account for any new members for 15 years. But we also know that south Korea and Thailand have applied to join. I merely point out I the assumption that tmif they do join thay 0.08 becomes 2.4% You seem angry at me explaining how these things are calculated because I bothered my arse to read them I'm not angry with you, but interesting interpretation. You just seem unable to communicate in a coherent way. It's taken you this long to organise your words to explain something that is perfectly understandable if, as you say, you read the reports. The OBR estimated a 4% reduction in GDP due to Brexit. There is nothing inherently wrong with the models which they chose to take an average of. They have clearly stated that estimate that a 1.6% fall had already taken place before the TCA. Not projected. Happened. They have clearly stated that the final form of the TCA does not change the original estimate. The only substantive difference is for immigration which will reduce the loss by an unquantified amount. Ultimately all you have said is that the loss from Brexit is less than 4% GDP over 15 years based purely on this analysis. You don't know by how much although 1.6% has already occured. It doesn't take into account the UK no longer being an attractive point of access to the EU for industrial and financial investment etc. The CPTPP figure of 0.08% is tiny. Neither you, nor anybody else has a better figure though. Are you able to provide any study that provides and upper bound? You also just asserted that two more countries joining a group of 11 will increase our GDP by a further 2.32% 11 countries +0.08% 13 countries +2.40% Data from where? We already have a free trade deal with one of them. South Korea. The Government estimated that the free trade deal with Japan (a larger economy) was only worth 0.1% GDP over 15 years. The conclusion from all of this seems to be that the estimated loss from leaving the EU is significantly larger than the estimated benefit from joining the CPTPP (unless you can show otherwise) with no likelihood of inward investment to the UK for access to a Pacific trading group. However your consistent message has been that there has been no significant loss to the UK in leaving the UK and that there is a major benefit in joining the CPTPP. No other organisation seems to believe this other than the UK Government and some elements of the British press although that requires ignoring their own figures. Again. It's NOT an obr estimate. The OBR simply put 13 other estimates together and averaged them out. How many times do you have to be told? You acknowledge then that the assumptions in those estimations were wrong. As I have explained to you? That immigration increased and that we attained an fta with e.u? The obr said that the front load of the estimations had taken place. But this isn't actually realised. They are reporting that, the papers they averaged out believed it was front ended. And they have done a calculation on this across the average. They haven't said it actually happened. You mention it doesn't take in to account the uk no longer being attractive..actually all the papers do take thay into account. As they calculated foreign direct investment too.try actually reading them. Again you highlight your ignorance of having ot read them. This is getting REALLY EMBARRASING now for you that you continually show you haven't read nor comprehended the OBR report or the papers that it was based on. The data for the extra 2 coutnrie is in the uk cltpp accession paper.( again though..highlight more to us that you haven't read the things you quote)
Again re we already have a trade deal with one of them.
In the exact same impact report you HAVE NOT READ you will see how cptpp goes further. You will see these are Government figures.
Yes the ESTIMATED loss is bigger.
Thays the point...estimated in 2016-2018 in 13 papers. Which decided thay the immigration would fall to emigration ( we know this didn't happen)
That the uk would fall back on MFN termsfor trading with e.u( we know this not to be true)
So yes they were estimates...estimates thay got their variables HORRIBLY wrong.
Cptpp isn't meant to recover any lost transactions with the e.u that is what the TCA is for.
Cptpp is simply mean to progress out trade even further.
My message has been there certainly been an effect. I've said time and again. We saw tbay effect early on in 2020 and 2021, and the drop in fdi.
But given that the long term. Effect were based around not TCA agreement and no immigration. We know the assumptions to be cobblers.
Seriously just go read the 13 documents and just read the actual OBR report because you quote it enough. You should have actually comprehended it by now.
You seem to have got a little large caps ANGRY now.
I think it might just be because you're struggling with your reading.
I will write some direct quotes here for reference. I understand that you are not "reinterpreting" what the OBR has written, you are just "explaining the methodology" to be completely incorrect.
Still, directly from the OBR:
"Our assessment is that the TCA is broadly similar to the ‘typical’ FTAs assumed in those studies and reflected in our forecasts since March 2020."
Does this mean that the OBR think that the estimates used assuming FTAs are pretty much the same as the TCA or something else?
"We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening"
Of course, they have used an average of a number of estimates made by other organisations. What does the OBR mean by "we estimate" in this context?
2/5 of 4% is 1.6% Is the the OBR saying that this has already happened when they state that the "impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force" or do they mean something else?
From the IMF:
"reduce...GDP by 0.6 percent in the
FTA scenario."
The FTA scenario is the one used by the OBR, so does the estimate need to be corrected by 0.6% or more? What about the other models? Any idea?
Moving to the CPTPP report from the Department for International Trade.
For some reason this was buried in a section on greenhouse gas emissions:
"the estimated percentage increase in GDP, which is 0.08%."
"For example, the boost to UK GDP is estimated to treble if Thailand and South Korea join the agreement."
"Scenario 1 - Current
CPTPP Membership
Scenario 2 - CPTPP 13 (CPTPP 11 +
Thailand + South Korea)
Scenario 3 - CPTPP 14 (CPTPP 11 +
Thailand + South Korea
+ USA)"
"All three scenarios assume a baseline where the UK has already secured an FTA with the US."
So, to be clear, even the tiny 0.08% increase in UK GDP assumes that the UK already has an FTA with the USA, which I don't believe that it does.
Even then, 0.08% x 3 is only 0.24%. Also quite remarkable that such a large change can be achieved by two countries joining a group of eleven. Japan's FTA with the UK alone was only expected to improve our GDP by 0.07%. joining the CPTPP with 11 countries is 0.08%. That implies that the effect of the increased benefit is fairly limited. Perhaps you think otherwise.
You should probably have som quiet time now.
Caps are to draw your attention to things so you can begin to understand.
Yes the OBR says it feels the assumptions are in line with its expectations. The problem being. How many people in these threads like admitting they're wrong? The obr was out by 30bn for government borrowing last year it overshot its estimations. Thats just 1 year imagine 15 years.
Good point on tbe o r saying their assumption of the tca is its broadly in line with assumptions. But we know one of those assumptions was the uk would have an fta. So how do you recocnile the obr is happy with the assumptions of ftas when one didn't include and fta? We might be getting somewhere here.
No. The 0.08% doesn't assume an fta with America. I would try reading that again.
As you allude that's a mighty jump if South Korea and Thailand join and we have an fta with one of them. You asked what's the point in cptpp if we have trade agreements. There's your proof it goes further.we have an fta yet if they join cptpp thay gdp increase goes up 3 fold.
Again. On these models. They assume a static approach for example if we don't sell insurance. It assumes we won't be granted accession to Insurance markets. Cptpp grants that access.
Hopefully you can learn to read in the mean time "I don't like to admit that I am wrong, but I will. I have with respect to the immigration figure which I have found some correction for. You haven't despite having read all of the estimates, apparently. You couldn't even accept that your calculation for Singapore and Thailand joining was either a typo or a factor of ten out. The OBR regularly revises its figures based on the latest data. That's one of the behaviours that give it more credibility than Government figures. In this case, you have laboured to point out that the OBR did not make their own prediction. They used an average of many others. You believe everyone is completely wrong but offer no alternative. I do not have to "reconcile" anything as I view them a reasonably credible and neutral organisation that provides the best information available and corrects itself as it goes. I cannot decipher what you are trying to say about FTAs anyway. If you are saying one of the estimates in the average did not assume an FTA would be on place, then take it out of the calculation of the average and give us the new figure. That might be vaguely useful. It won't take it down to 0.08% from 4% As has been pointed out by many posters that all you have really been writing is that no economics estimate is completely reliable. Most people realise this due to the word "estimate". Consequently there's no point in carrying out any estimates and using them to either make decisions or assess consequences. However, you seem to believe that the CPTPP estimates are somehow more reliable and if not use the words "static" and "dynamic" to imply that any benefit to UK GDP would only be better than that calculated. You really do need to explain what these words mean if not what they say: "All three scenarios assume a baseline where the UK has already secured an FTA with the US." Perhaps you could start with an easier example to prove that black is the same as white? Joining a trading group of 11 countries gives us a 0.08% increase in GDP. Adding 2 more countries somehow triples that benefit. This is "proof" of something but you haven't explained how this is possible. You have, naturally, read and fully understood the underlying calculations just as you have "demonstrated" throughout these threads then? Ultimately all that is actually important is that the best available estimates for Brexit losses are significantly higher than the best available benefits for joining CPTPP over the long term. The short term consequences are unambiguous. You can argue over the details as much as you like, although you don't seem to be particularly clear or correct about those either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“
Precisely ….those Brexiteers so keen on self determination and sovereignty are more than willing for us to ceed sovereignty under these trade deals …. without democratic accountability- quelle surprise ?????
How do you cede sovereignty under a trade deal? That is precisely the problem with the EU. It started as a trade deal but morphed into an over-arching superstate. Let's grab the opportunity of trade deals and get on with it.
How is arbitration between a private corporation and a state settled in the CPTPP?
Thats not sovereignty.
A sovereign state can be sued, in private, if it introduces legislation that affects the profits of a private company.
That directly affects the consideration of lawmaking in the UK. That is a loss of sovereignty.
All trade deals reduce sovereignty as it contains freedom to do as we want with tariffs and other matters, depending on the nature of the deal.
Sovereignty is the power of the state to government itself.
If a state acts inappropriately in its own process a company can't take it to court on its own legal terms. That's been the point of the Branson legal case for virgin health and the glp lawsuits they lose vs the government procurement process for ppe.
Fta deals don't affect your own governments ability to self govern."The state can create a new law. Under the terms of the CPTPP it can be forced to pay compensation to a private company that claims a financial loss under Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) procedures The Australian Government had to pay Phillip Morris tobacco huge sums to compensate them for loss of sales from moving to plain packaging. The circumstances and payments for such arbitration will remain private. Government will have to take account of these circumstances when making decisions. That restrains its ability to do as it wishes. A loss of sovereignty, in this case to private corporations. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very interesting that the OPs very clever houses of cards about the zero effect of Brexit and the enormously positive effect of the CPTPP have not been constructed and published by anybody else anywhere. They have been extrapolated from deeply buried reports so all of the data is, apparently there to see, but nobody else has. Nobody else put these clues together. Certainly nobody has published them. Not any of the Brexit supporting papers, Brexit supporting "think tanks" and economists. There have been absolutely no negative economic consequences of Brexit. There was no benefit in being a member of this huge free market, but apparently there is a huge benefit in joining some other free market much further away. Why is that? Oh no, a great many have read them. And understand them. Which is why we carry on with brexit and ftas. Regardless of those who kn these threads reply. " blah blah" at the breakdowns. Really? Why has nobody published the same conclusions as you have, saying that the OBR calculations of the penalty of leaving the EU is 4% of GDP since 2019 and a 0.08% gain over 10 years with CPTPP. Not even the Government who are very, very excited about it. Just point me to some analyses that draw the same conclusion as you. It would be good to read something coherent on the topic that explains the complete opposite. The obr published its methodology. I am quoting their report. I am quoting the government impact assessment. They are literally published. Please just read them Then you are, literally, reinterpreting the OBR are and Government figures. You are saying they don't understand their own data and are unable to present it properly, but you can. Correct? No I am not I am explaining their methodology. Which you do not understand. You are presenting the same data (that's what you said) and saying that the conclusions that they reached and numbers quoted should not be used anymore. In fact, the CPTPP data should never have been used as it indicates nothing useful. I don't "understand" their data in the way you would like me to. I get that very clearly. Leaving the EU caused no problems because interpretation of "methodology". Joining the CPTPP is brilliant because of interpretation of "methodology". Correct? I am presenting the same data. I am merely exaining to you the methodology. And the thinking that is what you do not understand. People were saying that there was a 4% hit to gdp and this was said by the obr. Thisnks not true The obr said they out together 13 forecasts and they averaged out over 15 years a 4% drop in gdp from leaving vs remain That's it. That's what the obr said. I read the forecasts and the assumptions. For example the world Bank assumed not trade deal and trade on mfn( i knkw this becaus ei read it). We now know thisnisnt the case. So the world Bank forecast is out. We know the bofe forecast ( again I know this because I read it) that productivity would slow and impact gdp because it assumes.ed we would enter net emigration. Again we know since their average migration used that in fact the uk didn't turn into net emigration but net immigration INCREASED I am not saying anything different to the OBR. The OBR put together these forecasts, Averaged them to 4% it made bo comment on the validity and accuracy of the assumptions. Assumption we bow have the data/ agreements to disprove. Again with cptpp. I am merely pointing out to you the methodology. That is assumes 0.08 % growth on a static model. We know that it doesn't account for new industrial exports thay have never had a market before. We know it doesn't account for any new members for 15 years. But we also know that south Korea and Thailand have applied to join. I merely point out I the assumption that tmif they do join thay 0.08 becomes 2.4% You seem angry at me explaining how these things are calculated because I bothered my arse to read them I'm not angry with you, but interesting interpretation. You just seem unable to communicate in a coherent way. It's taken you this long to organise your words to explain something that is perfectly understandable if, as you say, you read the reports. The OBR estimated a 4% reduction in GDP due to Brexit. There is nothing inherently wrong with the models which they chose to take an average of. They have clearly stated that estimate that a 1.6% fall had already taken place before the TCA. Not projected. Happened. They have clearly stated that the final form of the TCA does not change the original estimate. The only substantive difference is for immigration which will reduce the loss by an unquantified amount. Ultimately all you have said is that the loss from Brexit is less than 4% GDP over 15 years based purely on this analysis. You don't know by how much although 1.6% has already occured. It doesn't take into account the UK no longer being an attractive point of access to the EU for industrial and financial investment etc. The CPTPP figure of 0.08% is tiny. Neither you, nor anybody else has a better figure though. Are you able to provide any study that provides and upper bound? You also just asserted that two more countries joining a group of 11 will increase our GDP by a further 2.32% 11 countries +0.08% 13 countries +2.40% Data from where? We already have a free trade deal with one of them. South Korea. The Government estimated that the free trade deal with Japan (a larger economy) was only worth 0.1% GDP over 15 years. The conclusion from all of this seems to be that the estimated loss from leaving the EU is significantly larger than the estimated benefit from joining the CPTPP (unless you can show otherwise) with no likelihood of inward investment to the UK for access to a Pacific trading group. However your consistent message has been that there has been no significant loss to the UK in leaving the UK and that there is a major benefit in joining the CPTPP. No other organisation seems to believe this other than the UK Government and some elements of the British press although that requires ignoring their own figures. Again. It's NOT an obr estimate. The OBR simply put 13 other estimates together and averaged them out. How many times do you have to be told? You acknowledge then that the assumptions in those estimations were wrong. As I have explained to you? That immigration increased and that we attained an fta with e.u? The obr said that the front load of the estimations had taken place. But this isn't actually realised. They are reporting that, the papers they averaged out believed it was front ended. And they have done a calculation on this across the average. They haven't said it actually happened. You mention it doesn't take in to account the uk no longer being attractive..actually all the papers do take thay into account. As they calculated foreign direct investment too.try actually reading them. Again you highlight your ignorance of having ot read them. This is getting REALLY EMBARRASING now for you that you continually show you haven't read nor comprehended the OBR report or the papers that it was based on. The data for the extra 2 coutnrie is in the uk cltpp accession paper.( again though..highlight more to us that you haven't read the things you quote)
Again re we already have a trade deal with one of them.
In the exact same impact report you HAVE NOT READ you will see how cptpp goes further. You will see these are Government figures.
Yes the ESTIMATED loss is bigger.
Thays the point...estimated in 2016-2018 in 13 papers. Which decided thay the immigration would fall to emigration ( we know this didn't happen)
That the uk would fall back on MFN termsfor trading with e.u( we know this not to be true)
So yes they were estimates...estimates thay got their variables HORRIBLY wrong.
Cptpp isn't meant to recover any lost transactions with the e.u that is what the TCA is for.
Cptpp is simply mean to progress out trade even further.
My message has been there certainly been an effect. I've said time and again. We saw tbay effect early on in 2020 and 2021, and the drop in fdi.
But given that the long term. Effect were based around not TCA agreement and no immigration. We know the assumptions to be cobblers.
Seriously just go read the 13 documents and just read the actual OBR report because you quote it enough. You should have actually comprehended it by now.
You seem to have got a little large caps ANGRY now.
I think it might just be because you're struggling with your reading.
I will write some direct quotes here for reference. I understand that you are not "reinterpreting" what the OBR has written, you are just "explaining the methodology" to be completely incorrect.
Still, directly from the OBR:
"Our assessment is that the TCA is broadly similar to the ‘typical’ FTAs assumed in those studies and reflected in our forecasts since March 2020."
Does this mean that the OBR think that the estimates used assuming FTAs are pretty much the same as the TCA or something else?
"We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening"
Of course, they have used an average of a number of estimates made by other organisations. What does the OBR mean by "we estimate" in this context?
2/5 of 4% is 1.6% Is the the OBR saying that this has already happened when they state that the "impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force" or do they mean something else?
From the IMF:
"reduce...GDP by 0.6 percent in the
FTA scenario."
The FTA scenario is the one used by the OBR, so does the estimate need to be corrected by 0.6% or more? What about the other models? Any idea?
Moving to the CPTPP report from the Department for International Trade.
For some reason this was buried in a section on greenhouse gas emissions:
"the estimated percentage increase in GDP, which is 0.08%."
"For example, the boost to UK GDP is estimated to treble if Thailand and South Korea join the agreement."
"Scenario 1 - Current
CPTPP Membership
Scenario 2 - CPTPP 13 (CPTPP 11 +
Thailand + South Korea)
Scenario 3 - CPTPP 14 (CPTPP 11 +
Thailand + South Korea
+ USA)"
"All three scenarios assume a baseline where the UK has already secured an FTA with the US."
So, to be clear, even the tiny 0.08% increase in UK GDP assumes that the UK already has an FTA with the USA, which I don't believe that it does.
Even then, 0.08% x 3 is only 0.24%. Also quite remarkable that such a large change can be achieved by two countries joining a group of eleven. Japan's FTA with the UK alone was only expected to improve our GDP by 0.07%. joining the CPTPP with 11 countries is 0.08%. That implies that the effect of the increased benefit is fairly limited. Perhaps you think otherwise.
You should probably have som quiet time now.
Oh Jesus.
You really do need to learn to read.
"All three scenarios assume a baseline where the UK has already secured an FTA with the US. Therefore, UK
GDP does not increase further between CPTPP 13 and CPTPP 14 when the US accedes to CPTPP. In the
case where US joins the agreement and the UK does not have a bilateral agreement, UK GDP is estimated
to increase by £19.7bn in the long run."
How many countries are in cptpp again?
The three scenarios are the confidence levels in the graph above here 90% 70% 50%
Probably time you took a break "Yes, I do continue to read the words: "All three scenarios assume a baseline where the UK has already secured an FTA with the US" as what they say they mean without recourse to a deity. So, where they wrote: "Scenario 1 - Current CPTPP Membership Scenario 2 - CPTPP 13 (CPTPP 11 + Thailand + South Korea) Scenario 3 - CPTPP 14 (CPTPP 11 + Thailand + South Korea + USA)" They actually meant something else? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“
Precisely ….those Brexiteers so keen on self determination and sovereignty are more than willing for us to ceed sovereignty under these trade deals …. without democratic accountability- quelle surprise ?????
How do you cede sovereignty under a trade deal? That is precisely the problem with the EU. It started as a trade deal but morphed into an over-arching superstate. Let's grab the opportunity of trade deals and get on with it.
It depends on your definition of sovereignty.
If having a seat at the table (every table) developing rules and regulations together that you then apply to all countries including your own is considered a loss of sovereignty then both the EU and CPTPP represents an issue for you. The idea that the EU made the UK do anything is nonsense. We worked together and were part of the club.
The actual number of rules or regulations that were detrimental to any group within the UK were minuscule and totally outweighed by the benefits. It was the same for every country, it is called compromise and is necessary to harmonise standards etc to enable free trade.
The UK was one of the three big fish in the EU pond. 2nd biggest economy. Most powerful military. Not in Euro. Outside Schengen. Veto. The idea poor little Bwitain was bullied by big bad EU is rubbish."To me sovereignty means self-determination by a government of the people. If you are telling me the EU isn't a federal superstate how come it has a president, a parliament, an anthem, a flag, it's own courts and judges, it's own overseas ambassadors?? C'mon if it looks like a dog and barks like a dog it's probably a dog!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“
Precisely ….those Brexiteers so keen on self determination and sovereignty are more than willing for us to ceed sovereignty under these trade deals …. without democratic accountability- quelle surprise ?????
How do you cede sovereignty under a trade deal? That is precisely the problem with the EU. It started as a trade deal but morphed into an over-arching superstate. Let's grab the opportunity of trade deals and get on with it.
It depends on your definition of sovereignty.
If having a seat at the table (every table) developing rules and regulations together that you then apply to all countries including your own is considered a loss of sovereignty then both the EU and CPTPP represents an issue for you. The idea that the EU made the UK do anything is nonsense. We worked together and were part of the club.
The actual number of rules or regulations that were detrimental to any group within the UK were minuscule and totally outweighed by the benefits. It was the same for every country, it is called compromise and is necessary to harmonise standards etc to enable free trade.
The UK was one of the three big fish in the EU pond. 2nd biggest economy. Most powerful military. Not in Euro. Outside Schengen. Veto. The idea poor little Bwitain was bullied by big bad EU is rubbish.
To me sovereignty means self-determination by a government of the people. If you are telling me the EU isn't a federal superstate how come it has a president, a parliament, an anthem, a flag, it's own courts and judges, it's own overseas ambassadors?? C'mon if it looks like a dog and barks like a dog it's probably a dog!!"I don't think that it's far from a federal state, but it misses out a lot of the most significant elements which are cooperative with unilateral opt-outs. Like defence, for instance. Courts have limited reach. A flag, anthem and the title "President" are a bit of a stretch for significance. What executive power does the EU President have? What power does the Irish President have? The EU is a hybrid. Something different. Not inherently any more problematic than being a member of NATO. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This 4% that is often quoted, has it actually happened or is it predicted to happen. If it's not happened yet (seems some now say 1.5%ish has happened) what's due to change that will Increase it to 4%. I'm not saying the figure is right or wrong but just trying to understand it as its sometimes said here that 4% has happened as though it's a fact a quick skim. The 1.4pc to date is a reduction in productivity plus lower investment. The future reductions is from non tariff barriers. Thank you. So if I were to say the UK has suffered a 4% hit to GDP already, would that statement be true? Or would a more accurate statement be, the UK has suffered a 1.4% hit with the possibility of that increasing in the future? The original estimates that the OBR used gave an average of a 4% reduction in UK GDP over 15 years. Of that approximately 1.6% has already been felt (2/5 of 4%), according to the OBR estimate of the results so far. So, about 2.4% to come. They also think that the FTA trade deal assumptions used to calculate this 4% average from the various organisations are valid under the final TCA based on the results so far. They don't seem to have provided a correction for the larger than expected (non-EU) immigration since Brexit. There is an IMF figure of 0.6% GDP loss under an FTA so it might be reasonable to assume that that should be added back. That would mean 3.4% overall loss over 15 years." That does not seem to answer my question of which of my two statements is most accurate. However from what you have put and others have put I'm thinking the statement that 1.4% has happened with the possibility of that increasing in the future is the most accurate | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This 4% that is often quoted, has it actually happened or is it predicted to happen. If it's not happened yet (seems some now say 1.5%ish has happened) what's due to change that will Increase it to 4%. I'm not saying the figure is right or wrong but just trying to understand it as its sometimes said here that 4% has happened as though it's a fact a quick skim. The 1.4pc to date is a reduction in productivity plus lower investment. The future reductions is from non tariff barriers. Thank you. So if I were to say the UK has suffered a 4% hit to GDP already, would that statement be true? Or would a more accurate statement be, the UK has suffered a 1.4% hit with the possibility of that increasing in the future? The original estimates that the OBR used gave an average of a 4% reduction in UK GDP over 15 years. Of that approximately 1.6% has already been felt (2/5 of 4%), according to the OBR estimate of the results so far. So, about 2.4% to come. They also think that the FTA trade deal assumptions used to calculate this 4% average from the various organisations are valid under the final TCA based on the results so far. They don't seem to have provided a correction for the larger than expected (non-EU) immigration since Brexit. There is an IMF figure of 0.6% GDP loss under an FTA so it might be reasonable to assume that that should be added back. That would mean 3.4% overall loss over 15 years. That does not seem to answer my question of which of my two statements is most accurate. However from what you have put and others have put I'm thinking the statement that 1.4% has happened with the possibility of that increasing in the future is the most accurate" There will be an on-going loss in investment and productivity too. Of course, the future is subject to change. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This 4% that is often quoted, has it actually happened or is it predicted to happen. If it's not happened yet (seems some now say 1.5%ish has happened) what's due to change that will Increase it to 4%. I'm not saying the figure is right or wrong but just trying to understand it as its sometimes said here that 4% has happened as though it's a fact a quick skim. The 1.4pc to date is a reduction in productivity plus lower investment. The future reductions is from non tariff barriers. Thank you. So if I were to say the UK has suffered a 4% hit to GDP already, would that statement be true? Or would a more accurate statement be, the UK has suffered a 1.4% hit with the possibility of that increasing in the future? The original estimates that the OBR used gave an average of a 4% reduction in UK GDP over 15 years. Of that approximately 1.6% has already been felt (2/5 of 4%), according to the OBR estimate of the results so far. So, about 2.4% to come. They also think that the FTA trade deal assumptions used to calculate this 4% average from the various organisations are valid under the final TCA based on the results so far. They don't seem to have provided a correction for the larger than expected (non-EU) immigration since Brexit. There is an IMF figure of 0.6% GDP loss under an FTA so it might be reasonable to assume that that should be added back. That would mean 3.4% overall loss over 15 years. That does not seem to answer my question of which of my two statements is most accurate. However from what you have put and others have put I'm thinking the statement that 1.4% has happened with the possibility of that increasing in the future is the most accurate There will be an on-going loss in investment and productivity too. Of course, the future is subject to change." There will be? Or, there is a possibility of? Those are vastly different statements and I'd argue that unless your name is Mystic Meg, you should probably change your statement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's very interesting that the OPs very clever houses of cards about the zero effect of Brexit and the enormously positive effect of the CPTPP have not been constructed and published by anybody else anywhere. They have been extrapolated from deeply buried reports so all of the data is, apparently there to see, but nobody else has. Nobody else put these clues together. Certainly nobody has published them. Not any of the Brexit supporting papers, Brexit supporting "think tanks" and economists. There have been absolutely no negative economic consequences of Brexit. There was no benefit in being a member of this huge free market, but apparently there is a huge benefit in joining some other free market much further away. Why is that? Oh no, a great many have read them. And understand them. Which is why we carry on with brexit and ftas. Regardless of those who kn these threads reply. " blah blah" at the breakdowns. Really? Why has nobody published the same conclusions as you have, saying that the OBR calculations of the penalty of leaving the EU is 4% of GDP since 2019 and a 0.08% gain over 10 years with CPTPP. Not even the Government who are very, very excited about it. Just point me to some analyses that draw the same conclusion as you. It would be good to read something coherent on the topic that explains the complete opposite. The obr published its methodology. I am quoting their report. I am quoting the government impact assessment. They are literally published. Please just read them Then you are, literally, reinterpreting the OBR are and Government figures. You are saying they don't understand their own data and are unable to present it properly, but you can. Correct? No I am not I am explaining their methodology. Which you do not understand. You are presenting the same data (that's what you said) and saying that the conclusions that they reached and numbers quoted should not be used anymore. In fact, the CPTPP data should never have been used as it indicates nothing useful. I don't "understand" their data in the way you would like me to. I get that very clearly. Leaving the EU caused no problems because interpretation of "methodology". Joining the CPTPP is brilliant because of interpretation of "methodology". Correct? I am presenting the same data. I am merely exaining to you the methodology. And the thinking that is what you do not understand. People were saying that there was a 4% hit to gdp and this was said by the obr. Thisnks not true The obr said they out together 13 forecasts and they averaged out over 15 years a 4% drop in gdp from leaving vs remain That's it. That's what the obr said. I read the forecasts and the assumptions. For example the world Bank assumed not trade deal and trade on mfn( i knkw this becaus ei read it). We now know thisnisnt the case. So the world Bank forecast is out. We know the bofe forecast ( again I know this because I read it) that productivity would slow and impact gdp because it assumes.ed we would enter net emigration. Again we know since their average migration used that in fact the uk didn't turn into net emigration but net immigration INCREASED I am not saying anything different to the OBR. The OBR put together these forecasts, Averaged them to 4% it made bo comment on the validity and accuracy of the assumptions. Assumption we bow have the data/ agreements to disprove. Again with cptpp. I am merely pointing out to you the methodology. That is assumes 0.08 % growth on a static model. We know that it doesn't account for new industrial exports thay have never had a market before. We know it doesn't account for any new members for 15 years. But we also know that south Korea and Thailand have applied to join. I merely point out I the assumption that tmif they do join thay 0.08 becomes 2.4% You seem angry at me explaining how these things are calculated because I bothered my arse to read them I'm not angry with you, but interesting interpretation. You just seem unable to communicate in a coherent way. It's taken you this long to organise your words to explain something that is perfectly understandable if, as you say, you read the reports. The OBR estimated a 4% reduction in GDP due to Brexit. There is nothing inherently wrong with the models which they chose to take an average of. They have clearly stated that estimate that a 1.6% fall had already taken place before the TCA. Not projected. Happened. They have clearly stated that the final form of the TCA does not change the original estimate. The only substantive difference is for immigration which will reduce the loss by an unquantified amount. Ultimately all you have said is that the loss from Brexit is less than 4% GDP over 15 years based purely on this analysis. You don't know by how much although 1.6% has already occured. It doesn't take into account the UK no longer being an attractive point of access to the EU for industrial and financial investment etc. The CPTPP figure of 0.08% is tiny. Neither you, nor anybody else has a better figure though. Are you able to provide any study that provides and upper bound? You also just asserted that two more countries joining a group of 11 will increase our GDP by a further 2.32% 11 countries +0.08% 13 countries +2.40% Data from where? We already have a free trade deal with one of them. South Korea. The Government estimated that the free trade deal with Japan (a larger economy) was only worth 0.1% GDP over 15 years. The conclusion from all of this seems to be that the estimated loss from leaving the EU is significantly larger than the estimated benefit from joining the CPTPP (unless you can show otherwise) with no likelihood of inward investment to the UK for access to a Pacific trading group. However your consistent message has been that there has been no significant loss to the UK in leaving the UK and that there is a major benefit in joining the CPTPP. No other organisation seems to believe this other than the UK Government and some elements of the British press although that requires ignoring their own figures. Again. It's NOT an obr estimate. The OBR simply put 13 other estimates together and averaged them out. How many times do you have to be told? You acknowledge then that the assumptions in those estimations were wrong. As I have explained to you? That immigration increased and that we attained an fta with e.u? The obr said that the front load of the estimations had taken place. But this isn't actually realised. They are reporting that, the papers they averaged out believed it was front ended. And they have done a calculation on this across the average. They haven't said it actually happened. You mention it doesn't take in to account the uk no longer being attractive..actually all the papers do take thay into account. As they calculated foreign direct investment too.try actually reading them. Again you highlight your ignorance of having ot read them. This is getting REALLY EMBARRASING now for you that you continually show you haven't read nor comprehended the OBR report or the papers that it was based on. The data for the extra 2 coutnrie is in the uk cltpp accession paper.( again though..highlight more to us that you haven't read the things you quote)
Again re we already have a trade deal with one of them.
In the exact same impact report you HAVE NOT READ you will see how cptpp goes further. You will see these are Government figures.
Yes the ESTIMATED loss is bigger.
Thays the point...estimated in 2016-2018 in 13 papers. Which decided thay the immigration would fall to emigration ( we know this didn't happen)
That the uk would fall back on MFN termsfor trading with e.u( we know this not to be true)
So yes they were estimates...estimates thay got their variables HORRIBLY wrong.
Cptpp isn't meant to recover any lost transactions with the e.u that is what the TCA is for.
Cptpp is simply mean to progress out trade even further.
My message has been there certainly been an effect. I've said time and again. We saw tbay effect early on in 2020 and 2021, and the drop in fdi.
But given that the long term. Effect were based around not TCA agreement and no immigration. We know the assumptions to be cobblers.
Seriously just go read the 13 documents and just read the actual OBR report because you quote it enough. You should have actually comprehended it by now.
You seem to have got a little large caps ANGRY now.
I think it might just be because you're struggling with your reading.
I will write some direct quotes here for reference. I understand that you are not "reinterpreting" what the OBR has written, you are just "explaining the methodology" to be completely incorrect.
Still, directly from the OBR:
"Our assessment is that the TCA is broadly similar to the ‘typical’ FTAs assumed in those studies and reflected in our forecasts since March 2020."
Does this mean that the OBR think that the estimates used assuming FTAs are pretty much the same as the TCA or something else?
"We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening"
Of course, they have used an average of a number of estimates made by other organisations. What does the OBR mean by "we estimate" in this context?
2/5 of 4% is 1.6% Is the the OBR saying that this has already happened when they state that the "impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force" or do they mean something else?
From the IMF:
"reduce...GDP by 0.6 percent in the
FTA scenario."
The FTA scenario is the one used by the OBR, so does the estimate need to be corrected by 0.6% or more? What about the other models? Any idea?
Moving to the CPTPP report from the Department for International Trade.
For some reason this was buried in a section on greenhouse gas emissions:
"the estimated percentage increase in GDP, which is 0.08%."
"For example, the boost to UK GDP is estimated to treble if Thailand and South Korea join the agreement."
"Scenario 1 - Current
CPTPP Membership
Scenario 2 - CPTPP 13 (CPTPP 11 +
Thailand + South Korea)
Scenario 3 - CPTPP 14 (CPTPP 11 +
Thailand + South Korea
+ USA)"
"All three scenarios assume a baseline where the UK has already secured an FTA with the US."
So, to be clear, even the tiny 0.08% increase in UK GDP assumes that the UK already has an FTA with the USA, which I don't believe that it does.
Even then, 0.08% x 3 is only 0.24%. Also quite remarkable that such a large change can be achieved by two countries joining a group of eleven. Japan's FTA with the UK alone was only expected to improve our GDP by 0.07%. joining the CPTPP with 11 countries is 0.08%. That implies that the effect of the increased benefit is fairly limited. Perhaps you think otherwise.
You should probably have som quiet time now.
Caps are to draw your attention to things so you can begin to understand.
Yes the OBR says it feels the assumptions are in line with its expectations. The problem being. How many people in these threads like admitting they're wrong? The obr was out by 30bn for government borrowing last year it overshot its estimations. Thats just 1 year imagine 15 years.
Good point on tbe o r saying their assumption of the tca is its broadly in line with assumptions. But we know one of those assumptions was the uk would have an fta. So how do you recocnile the obr is happy with the assumptions of ftas when one didn't include and fta? We might be getting somewhere here.
No. The 0.08% doesn't assume an fta with America. I would try reading that again.
As you allude that's a mighty jump if South Korea and Thailand join and we have an fta with one of them. You asked what's the point in cptpp if we have trade agreements. There's your proof it goes further.we have an fta yet if they join cptpp thay gdp increase goes up 3 fold.
Again. On these models. They assume a static approach for example if we don't sell insurance. It assumes we won't be granted accession to Insurance markets. Cptpp grants that access.
Hopefully you can learn to read in the mean time
I don't like to admit that I am wrong, but I will. I have with respect to the immigration figure which I have found some correction for. You haven't despite having read all of the estimates, apparently. You couldn't even accept that your calculation for Singapore and Thailand joining was either a typo or a factor of ten out.
The OBR regularly revises its figures based on the latest data. That's one of the behaviours that give it more credibility than Government figures.
In this case, you have laboured to point out that the OBR did not make their own prediction. They used an average of many others. You believe everyone is completely wrong but offer no alternative.
I do not have to "reconcile" anything as I view them a reasonably credible and neutral organisation that provides the best information available and corrects itself as it goes.
I cannot decipher what you are trying to say about FTAs anyway. If you are saying one of the estimates in the average did not assume an FTA would be on place, then take it out of the calculation of the average and give us the new figure. That might be vaguely useful. It won't take it down to 0.08% from 4%
As has been pointed out by many posters that all you have really been writing is that no economics estimate is completely reliable. Most people realise this due to the word "estimate". Consequently there's no point in carrying out any estimates and using them to either make decisions or assess consequences.
However, you seem to believe that the CPTPP estimates are somehow more reliable and if not use the words "static" and "dynamic" to imply that any benefit to UK GDP would only be better than that calculated.
You really do need to explain what these words mean if not what they say: "All three scenarios assume a baseline where the UK has already secured an FTA with the US." Perhaps you could start with an easier example to prove that black is the same as white?
Joining a trading group of 11 countries gives us a 0.08% increase in GDP. Adding 2 more countries somehow triples that benefit.
This is "proof" of something but you haven't explained how this is possible. You have, naturally, read and fully understood the underlying calculations just as you have "demonstrated" throughout these threads then?
Ultimately all that is actually important is that the best available estimates for Brexit losses are significantly higher than the best available benefits for joining CPTPP over the long term.
The short term consequences are unambiguous.
You can argue over the details as much as you like, although you don't seem to be particularly clear or correct about those either."What it's proof of. People seem to think that joining cptpp doesn't bring in a benefit because we already have trade deals. As you will see on ( page 3) if I remember theres a box with about 60 green and white boxes. This is where cptpp goes further than current trade deals. So if s korea joins you can see that the estomation increases 3 fold. Putting paid to the idea that cptpp doesn't add much if we already have ftas. On the other point you said all the scenarios included a deal with the usa. They do not. This was just you unable to read. You were reading the scenario on cptpp 15 and the confidence intervals. There's are no best estimates of brezkt losses. Because no one has sat down an analysed the data. And the data should be thay we should be several percentage points in growth behind Germany and France. But as we know Germany is about to regress in q1 well below pre covid levels, while the uk growsabove it. So why is that can you reconcile? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“
Precisely ….those Brexiteers so keen on self determination and sovereignty are more than willing for us to ceed sovereignty under these trade deals …. without democratic accountability- quelle surprise ?????
How do you cede sovereignty under a trade deal? That is precisely the problem with the EU. It started as a trade deal but morphed into an over-arching superstate. Let's grab the opportunity of trade deals and get on with it.
It depends on your definition of sovereignty.
If having a seat at the table (every table) developing rules and regulations together that you then apply to all countries including your own is considered a loss of sovereignty then both the EU and CPTPP represents an issue for you. The idea that the EU made the UK do anything is nonsense. We worked together and were part of the club.
The actual number of rules or regulations that were detrimental to any group within the UK were minuscule and totally outweighed by the benefits. It was the same for every country, it is called compromise and is necessary to harmonise standards etc to enable free trade.
The UK was one of the three big fish in the EU pond. 2nd biggest economy. Most powerful military. Not in Euro. Outside Schengen. Veto. The idea poor little Bwitain was bullied by big bad EU is rubbish.
To me sovereignty means self-determination by a government of the people. If you are telling me the EU isn't a federal superstate how come it has a president, a parliament, an anthem, a flag, it's own courts and judges, it's own overseas ambassadors?? C'mon if it looks like a dog and barks like a dog it's probably a dog!!
I don't think that it's far from a federal state, but it misses out a lot of the most significant elements which are cooperative with unilateral opt-outs. Like defence, for instance.
Courts have limited reach.
A flag, anthem and the title "President" are a bit of a stretch for significance.
What executive power does the EU President have? What power does the Irish President have?
The EU is a hybrid. Something different. Not inherently any more problematic than being a member of NATO."The e.u has the right to overrul domestic law. Cptpp doesn't do this. Please see the current disputes with Poland etc on primacy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This 4% that is often quoted, has it actually happened or is it predicted to happen. If it's not happened yet (seems some now say 1.5%ish has happened) what's due to change that will Increase it to 4%. I'm not saying the figure is right or wrong but just trying to understand it as its sometimes said here that 4% has happened as though it's a fact a quick skim. The 1.4pc to date is a reduction in productivity plus lower investment. The future reductions is from non tariff barriers. Thank you. So if I were to say the UK has suffered a 4% hit to GDP already, would that statement be true? Or would a more accurate statement be, the UK has suffered a 1.4% hit with the possibility of that increasing in the future? The original estimates that the OBR used gave an average of a 4% reduction in UK GDP over 15 years. Of that approximately 1.6% has already been felt (2/5 of 4%), according to the OBR estimate of the results so far. So, about 2.4% to come. They also think that the FTA trade deal assumptions used to calculate this 4% average from the various organisations are valid under the final TCA based on the results so far. They don't seem to have provided a correction for the larger than expected (non-EU) immigration since Brexit. There is an IMF figure of 0.6% GDP loss under an FTA so it might be reasonable to assume that that should be added back. That would mean 3.4% overall loss over 15 years. That does not seem to answer my question of which of my two statements is most accurate. However from what you have put and others have put I'm thinking the statement that 1.4% has happened with the possibility of that increasing in the future is the most accurate There will be an on-going loss in investment and productivity too. Of course, the future is subject to change." I think you probably need to look at productivity trends. As there doesn't seem to be ab o going problem.. infact again. Germany productivity has fallen drastically vs uk growth. German productivity is currently below whatbit was in 2013. Uk productivity about 5% higher. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This 4% that is often quoted, has it actually happened or is it predicted to happen. If it's not happened yet (seems some now say 1.5%ish has happened) what's due to change that will Increase it to 4%. I'm not saying the figure is right or wrong but just trying to understand it as its sometimes said here that 4% has happened as though it's a fact a quick skim. The 1.4pc to date is a reduction in productivity plus lower investment. The future reductions is from non tariff barriers. Thank you. So if I were to say the UK has suffered a 4% hit to GDP already, would that statement be true? Or would a more accurate statement be, the UK has suffered a 1.4% hit with the possibility of that increasing in the future? The original estimates that the OBR used gave an average of a 4% reduction in UK GDP over 15 years. Of that approximately 1.6% has already been felt (2/5 of 4%), according to the OBR estimate of the results so far. So, about 2.4% to come. They also think that the FTA trade deal assumptions used to calculate this 4% average from the various organisations are valid under the final TCA based on the results so far. They don't seem to have provided a correction for the larger than expected (non-EU) immigration since Brexit. There is an IMF figure of 0.6% GDP loss under an FTA so it might be reasonable to assume that that should be added back. That would mean 3.4% overall loss over 15 years. That does not seem to answer my question of which of my two statements is most accurate. However from what you have put and others have put I'm thinking the statement that 1.4% has happened with the possibility of that increasing in the future is the most accurate There will be an on-going loss in investment and productivity too. Of course, the future is subject to change. There will be? Or, there is a possibility of? Those are vastly different statements and I'd argue that unless your name is Mystic Meg, you should probably change your statement." It's a shame e you ant post pictures on these threads. Otherwise I'd love tk post the comparators of German productivity since 2013 vs the uk on trading economics. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This 4% that is often quoted, has it actually happened or is it predicted to happen. If it's not happened yet (seems some now say 1.5%ish has happened) what's due to change that will Increase it to 4%. I'm not saying the figure is right or wrong but just trying to understand it as its sometimes said here that 4% has happened as though it's a fact a quick skim. The 1.4pc to date is a reduction in productivity plus lower investment. The future reductions is from non tariff barriers. Thank you. So if I were to say the UK has suffered a 4% hit to GDP already, would that statement be true? Or would a more accurate statement be, the UK has suffered a 1.4% hit with the possibility of that increasing in the future? The original estimates that the OBR used gave an average of a 4% reduction in UK GDP over 15 years. Of that approximately 1.6% has already been felt (2/5 of 4%), according to the OBR estimate of the results so far. So, about 2.4% to come. They also think that the FTA trade deal assumptions used to calculate this 4% average from the various organisations are valid under the final TCA based on the results so far. They don't seem to have provided a correction for the larger than expected (non-EU) immigration since Brexit. There is an IMF figure of 0.6% GDP loss under an FTA so it might be reasonable to assume that that should be added back. That would mean 3.4% overall loss over 15 years. That does not seem to answer my question of which of my two statements is most accurate. However from what you have put and others have put I'm thinking the statement that 1.4% has happened with the possibility of that increasing in the future is the most accurate There will be an on-going loss in investment and productivity too. Of course, the future is subject to change. There will be? Or, there is a possibility of? Those are vastly different statements and I'd argue that unless your name is Mystic Meg, you should probably change your statement. It's a shame e you ant post pictures on these threads. Otherwise I'd love tk post the comparators of German productivity since 2013 vs the uk on trading economics." There's certain people on these threads who would deny they exist even after seeing them with their own eyes. TBH, you probably already know, but you're wasting your time with that one. He's never wrong | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This 4% that is often quoted, has it actually happened or is it predicted to happen. If it's not happened yet (seems some now say 1.5%ish has happened) what's due to change that will Increase it to 4%. I'm not saying the figure is right or wrong but just trying to understand it as its sometimes said here that 4% has happened as though it's a fact a quick skim. The 1.4pc to date is a reduction in productivity plus lower investment. The future reductions is from non tariff barriers. Thank you. So if I were to say the UK has suffered a 4% hit to GDP already, would that statement be true? Or would a more accurate statement be, the UK has suffered a 1.4% hit with the possibility of that increasing in the future? The original estimates that the OBR used gave an average of a 4% reduction in UK GDP over 15 years. Of that approximately 1.6% has already been felt (2/5 of 4%), according to the OBR estimate of the results so far. So, about 2.4% to come. They also think that the FTA trade deal assumptions used to calculate this 4% average from the various organisations are valid under the final TCA based on the results so far. They don't seem to have provided a correction for the larger than expected (non-EU) immigration since Brexit. There is an IMF figure of 0.6% GDP loss under an FTA so it might be reasonable to assume that that should be added back. That would mean 3.4% overall loss over 15 years. That does not seem to answer my question of which of my two statements is most accurate. However from what you have put and others have put I'm thinking the statement that 1.4% has happened with the possibility of that increasing in the future is the most accurate There will be an on-going loss in investment and productivity too. Of course, the future is subject to change. There will be? Or, there is a possibility of? Those are vastly different statements and I'd argue that unless your name is Mystic Meg, you should probably change your statement. It's a shame e you ant post pictures on these threads. Otherwise I'd love tk post the comparators of German productivity since 2013 vs the uk on trading economics. There's certain people on these threads who would deny they exist even after seeing them with their own eyes. TBH, you probably already know, but you're wasting your time with that one. He's never wrong "Should any one wish to compare though. You can search on Google "trading economics uk productivity" Then you can click the graph " 10y" Then hit the 2 arrows pointing right the cross each other Select "germany" Select " productivity" I'm the 2 drop downs
Make up your own mind. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This 4% that is often quoted, has it actually happened or is it predicted to happen. If it's not happened yet (seems some now say 1.5%ish has happened) what's due to change that will Increase it to 4%. I'm not saying the figure is right or wrong but just trying to understand it as its sometimes said here that 4% has happened as though it's a fact a quick skim. The 1.4pc to date is a reduction in productivity plus lower investment. The future reductions is from non tariff barriers. Thank you. So if I were to say the UK has suffered a 4% hit to GDP already, would that statement be true? Or would a more accurate statement be, the UK has suffered a 1.4% hit with the possibility of that increasing in the future? The original estimates that the OBR used gave an average of a 4% reduction in UK GDP over 15 years. Of that approximately 1.6% has already been felt (2/5 of 4%), according to the OBR estimate of the results so far. So, about 2.4% to come. They also think that the FTA trade deal assumptions used to calculate this 4% average from the various organisations are valid under the final TCA based on the results so far. They don't seem to have provided a correction for the larger than expected (non-EU) immigration since Brexit. There is an IMF figure of 0.6% GDP loss under an FTA so it might be reasonable to assume that that should be added back. That would mean 3.4% overall loss over 15 years. That does not seem to answer my question of which of my two statements is most accurate. However from what you have put and others have put I'm thinking the statement that 1.4% has happened with the possibility of that increasing in the future is the most accurate There will be an on-going loss in investment and productivity too. Of course, the future is subject to change. There will be? Or, there is a possibility of? Those are vastly different statements and I'd argue that unless your name is Mystic Meg, you should probably change your statement." There will be from the UK being a path for investment into the EU. This may or may not be substituted. The phrase: "Of course, the future is subject to change" should make it clear that I am not trying to say anything other than that. However, it is also clear that this is just another opportunity for you to express your dislike for me, so you just carry on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This 4% that is often quoted, has it actually happened or is it predicted to happen. If it's not happened yet (seems some now say 1.5%ish has happened) what's due to change that will Increase it to 4%. I'm not saying the figure is right or wrong but just trying to understand it as its sometimes said here that 4% has happened as though it's a fact a quick skim. The 1.4pc to date is a reduction in productivity plus lower investment. The future reductions is from non tariff barriers. Thank you. So if I were to say the UK has suffered a 4% hit to GDP already, would that statement be true? Or would a more accurate statement be, the UK has suffered a 1.4% hit with the possibility of that increasing in the future? The original estimates that the OBR used gave an average of a 4% reduction in UK GDP over 15 years. Of that approximately 1.6% has already been felt (2/5 of 4%), according to the OBR estimate of the results so far. So, about 2.4% to come. They also think that the FTA trade deal assumptions used to calculate this 4% average from the various organisations are valid under the final TCA based on the results so far. They don't seem to have provided a correction for the larger than expected (non-EU) immigration since Brexit. There is an IMF figure of 0.6% GDP loss under an FTA so it might be reasonable to assume that that should be added back. That would mean 3.4% overall loss over 15 years. That does not seem to answer my question of which of my two statements is most accurate. However from what you have put and others have put I'm thinking the statement that 1.4% has happened with the possibility of that increasing in the future is the most accurate There will be an on-going loss in investment and productivity too. Of course, the future is subject to change. There will be? Or, there is a possibility of? Those are vastly different statements and I'd argue that unless your name is Mystic Meg, you should probably change your statement. There will be from the UK being a path for investment into the EU. This may or may not be substituted. The phrase: "Of course, the future is subject to change" should make it clear that I am not trying to say anything other than that. However, it is also clear that this is just another opportunity for you to express your dislike for me, so you just carry on." There will be? Definitely? You can 100% guarantee it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“
Precisely ….those Brexiteers so keen on self determination and sovereignty are more than willing for us to ceed sovereignty under these trade deals …. without democratic accountability- quelle surprise ?????
How do you cede sovereignty under a trade deal? That is precisely the problem with the EU. It started as a trade deal but morphed into an over-arching superstate. Let's grab the opportunity of trade deals and get on with it.
It depends on your definition of sovereignty.
If having a seat at the table (every table) developing rules and regulations together that you then apply to all countries including your own is considered a loss of sovereignty then both the EU and CPTPP represents an issue for you. The idea that the EU made the UK do anything is nonsense. We worked together and were part of the club.
The actual number of rules or regulations that were detrimental to any group within the UK were minuscule and totally outweighed by the benefits. It was the same for every country, it is called compromise and is necessary to harmonise standards etc to enable free trade.
The UK was one of the three big fish in the EU pond. 2nd biggest economy. Most powerful military. Not in Euro. Outside Schengen. Veto. The idea poor little Bwitain was bullied by big bad EU is rubbish.
To me sovereignty means self-determination by a government of the people. If you are telling me the EU isn't a federal superstate how come it has a president, a parliament, an anthem, a flag, it's own courts and judges, it's own overseas ambassadors?? C'mon if it looks like a dog and barks like a dog it's probably a dog!!
I don't think that it's far from a federal state, but it misses out a lot of the most significant elements which are cooperative with unilateral opt-outs. Like defence, for instance.
Courts have limited reach.
A flag, anthem and the title "President" are a bit of a stretch for significance.
What executive power does the EU President have? What power does the Irish President have?
The EU is a hybrid. Something different. Not inherently any more problematic than being a member of NATO.
The e.u has the right to overrul domestic law. Cptpp doesn't do this.
Please see the current disputes with Poland etc on primacy."The ability for a company to litigate, in secret, for compensation for any law introduced by a sovereign state that has a negative effect on them. The ISDS dispute between Australia and Phillip Morris demonstrates that. As I pointed out. The Conversation: When even winning is losing. The surprising cost of defeating Philip Morris over plain packaging | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“
Precisely ….those Brexiteers so keen on self determination and sovereignty are more than willing for us to ceed sovereignty under these trade deals …. without democratic accountability- quelle surprise ?????
How do you cede sovereignty under a trade deal? That is precisely the problem with the EU. It started as a trade deal but morphed into an over-arching superstate. Let's grab the opportunity of trade deals and get on with it.
It depends on your definition of sovereignty.
If having a seat at the table (every table) developing rules and regulations together that you then apply to all countries including your own is considered a loss of sovereignty then both the EU and CPTPP represents an issue for you. The idea that the EU made the UK do anything is nonsense. We worked together and were part of the club.
The actual number of rules or regulations that were detrimental to any group within the UK were minuscule and totally outweighed by the benefits. It was the same for every country, it is called compromise and is necessary to harmonise standards etc to enable free trade.
The UK was one of the three big fish in the EU pond. 2nd biggest economy. Most powerful military. Not in Euro. Outside Schengen. Veto. The idea poor little Bwitain was bullied by big bad EU is rubbish.
To me sovereignty means self-determination by a government of the people. If you are telling me the EU isn't a federal superstate how come it has a president, a parliament, an anthem, a flag, it's own courts and judges, it's own overseas ambassadors?? C'mon if it looks like a dog and barks like a dog it's probably a dog!!
I don't think that it's far from a federal state, but it misses out a lot of the most significant elements which are cooperative with unilateral opt-outs. Like defence, for instance.
Courts have limited reach.
A flag, anthem and the title "President" are a bit of a stretch for significance.
What executive power does the EU President have? What power does the Irish President have?
The EU is a hybrid. Something different. Not inherently any more problematic than being a member of NATO.
The e.u has the right to overrul domestic law. Cptpp doesn't do this.
Please see the current disputes with Poland etc on primacy.
The ability for a company to litigate, in secret, for compensation for any law introduced by a sovereign state that has a negative effect on them.
The ISDS dispute between Australia and Phillip Morris demonstrates that. As I pointed out.
The Conversation: When even winning is losing. The surprising cost of defeating Philip Morris over plain packaging"This kick starts an arbitration service that doesn't affect domestic law or courts. I suggested you read a link. Did you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The ability for a company to litigate, in secret, for compensation for any law introduced by a sovereign state that has a negative effect on them. The ISDS dispute between Australia and Phillip Morris demonstrates that. As I pointed out. The Conversation: When even winning is losing. The surprising cost of defeating Philip Morris over plain packaging" Perhaps you should re-read that story. To summarise it, Australia won, Philip Morris lost. Australia has its new laws on plain tobacco packaging, and it didn't have to compensate Philip Morris. Not the best example of how a trade agreement cedes sovereignty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also interestingly... “Donald Trump, as one of his first acts in office, withdrew from the talks calling the TPP a “disaster” and a “rape” of the American people. He claimed that the agreement would “not only undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence”. The move was not a partisan issue. Bernie Sanders, the left-wing democratic presidential candidate was fully behind it, following intense lobbying by groups like Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) claiming the deal’s 5,500 pages “erodes sovereignty” and delves “deeply into the domestic laws of the US”. One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“ Are you quoting trump as a reliable source now? Trumps politics were to domesticated home production and only import what the usa itself wouldn't produce. Indont agree with those policies. Ironically they are usually associated with left wing thinking. Lol no but as it was an executive order that was supported by Bernie Sanders, it seems pretty relevant. Carried on by the Biden administration. Who pulled don't of ALL trade deals the usa was negotiating. Do you agree then with domestication as much production as possible? It was quite funny at the time that almost all democrats opposed Trumps policy on this, but went even further than trump when they were put in office. I honestly do not know. As I say, I am a layperson when it comes to international trade deals. At present I am not seeing how this benefits the UK more than staying in the EU would have? Carbon footprint of long distance trade alone must be a downside? I think the lack of domestic product in the UK is a major issue, global supply chains broke during the pandemic and Ukraine / Russian war showing how fragile they are. I think from a UK perspective it could be extremely difficult to turn around our reliance on other nations. That is my gut feel not any real insight, but I would be shocked if someone came here saying that the UK could be self efficient, to the needs of the population I dont think the uk would be self sufficient far from it. Especially cattle feed with soya. But I find it interesting people on these forums would indulge what were very "Trumpian" policies When are we having a referendum so we can decide (democratically ) if we want to join?? We won't. It's not a political and legal union
And yet...
“One signatory is New Zealand, but not everyone there is behind it. Opponents of the CPTPP claim NZ is now “ruled by a TPP Federal Government” and say the treaty is “binding” on member nations, “overriding the domestic laws and constitutions of the individual countries”.“
Precisely ….those Brexiteers so keen on self determination and sovereignty are more than willing for us to ceed sovereignty under these trade deals …. without democratic accountability- quelle surprise ?????
How do you cede sovereignty under a trade deal? That is precisely the problem with the EU. It started as a trade deal but morphed into an over-arching superstate. Let's grab the opportunity of trade deals and get on with it.
It depends on your definition of sovereignty.
If having a seat at the table (every table) developing rules and regulations together that you then apply to all countries including your own is considered a loss of sovereignty then both the EU and CPTPP represents an issue for you. The idea that the EU made the UK do anything is nonsense. We worked together and were part of the club.
The actual number of rules or regulations that were detrimental to any group within the UK were minuscule and totally outweighed by the benefits. It was the same for every country, it is called compromise and is necessary to harmonise standards etc to enable free trade.
The UK was one of the three big fish in the EU pond. 2nd biggest economy. Most powerful military. Not in Euro. Outside Schengen. Veto. The idea poor little Bwitain was bullied by big bad EU is rubbish.
To me sovereignty means self-determination by a government of the people. If you are telling me the EU isn't a federal superstate how come it has a president, a parliament, an anthem, a flag, it's own courts and judges, it's own overseas ambassadors?? C'mon if it looks like a dog and barks like a dog it's probably a dog!!
I don't think that it's far from a federal state, but it misses out a lot of the most significant elements which are cooperative with unilateral opt-outs. Like defence, for instance.
Courts have limited reach.
A flag, anthem and the title "President" are a bit of a stretch for significance.
What executive power does the EU President have? What power does the Irish President have?
The EU is a hybrid. Something different. Not inherently any more problematic than being a member of NATO.
The e.u has the right to overrul domestic law. Cptpp doesn't do this.
Please see the current disputes with Poland etc on primacy.
The ability for a company to litigate, in secret, for compensation for any law introduced by a sovereign state that has a negative effect on them.
The ISDS dispute between Australia and Phillip Morris demonstrates that. As I pointed out.
The Conversation: When even winning is losing. The surprising cost of defeating Philip Morris over plain packaging
This kick starts an arbitration service that doesn't affect domestic law or courts. I suggested you read a link. Did you?
"Like the last time you got involved in the forum's, it seems to be more about proving how clever you are than discussing the topic. Step after step you roll back from the points in question and start to argue over details to "win" something. You are still wrong on those though. The words are there to read as you have so often said. Nothing that you have written has changed the fact that the cost of Brexit by any measure is several orders of magnitude bigger than the benefit of joining the CPTPP. It is great that we have this new deal, but it's not all that. The end. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This 4% that is often quoted, has it actually happened or is it predicted to happen. If it's not happened yet (seems some now say 1.5%ish has happened) what's due to change that will Increase it to 4%. I'm not saying the figure is right or wrong but just trying to understand it as its sometimes said here that 4% has happened as though it's a fact a quick skim. The 1.4pc to date is a reduction in productivity plus lower investment. The future reductions is from non tariff barriers. Thank you. So if I were to say the UK has suffered a 4% hit to GDP already, would that statement be true? Or would a more accurate statement be, the UK has suffered a 1.4% hit with the possibility of that increasing in the future? The original estimates that the OBR used gave an average of a 4% reduction in UK GDP over 15 years. Of that approximately 1.6% has already been felt (2/5 of 4%), according to the OBR estimate of the results so far. So, about 2.4% to come. They also think that the FTA trade deal assumptions used to calculate this 4% average from the various organisations are valid under the final TCA based on the results so far. They don't seem to have provided a correction for the larger than expected (non-EU) immigration since Brexit. There is an IMF figure of 0.6% GDP loss under an FTA so it might be reasonable to assume that that should be added back. That would mean 3.4% overall loss over 15 years. That does not seem to answer my question of which of my two statements is most accurate. However from what you have put and others have put I'm thinking the statement that 1.4% has happened with the possibility of that increasing in the future is the most accurate There will be an on-going loss in investment and productivity too. Of course, the future is subject to change." Still not giving a direct answer to a direct question I see. A bit surprised as you often call out others for such responses. However by your own words and admissions over several posts it's now clear that the statement 'the UK has dropped by 4%' is not correct. In fact it is 1.4% and anything else in the future is an estimate at best. The estimate may be bang on, or understated or even overstated but until we know the actual results it is not a fact. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
