Discussion:
Gove proving the government is not too busy with Brexit
(too old to reply)
James Harris
2018-01-05 17:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up so much
bandwidth that the government won't be able to do anything else. Yet
another reason not to honour the referendum, they think.

The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely shows that up.
He and his department are coming up with loads of policy changes to
improve life for the public.

In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round each government
department one at a time to redesign the way that department works.
--
James Harris
Brian Reay
2018-01-05 19:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up so much
bandwidth that the government won't be able to do anything else. Yet
another reason not to honour the referendum, they think.
The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely shows that up.
He and his department are coming up with loads of policy changes to
improve life for the public.
In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round each government
department one at a time to redesign the way that department works.
Unfortunately, Gove does move around - leaving a mess behind him. He is
an idiot whose idea of policy is a few 'sound bites' on the proverbial
fag packet.
Yellow
2018-01-05 19:51:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by James Harris
I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up so much
bandwidth that the government won't be able to do anything else. Yet
another reason not to honour the referendum, they think.
The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely shows that up.
He and his department are coming up with loads of policy changes to
improve life for the public.
In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round each government
department one at a time to redesign the way that department works.
Unfortunately, Gove does move around - leaving a mess behind him. He is
an idiot whose idea of policy is a few 'sound bites' on the proverbial
fag packet.
He is actually extremely bright and well educated, but not from a
privileged background - so of the type we could do with more of in
Parliament, on all sides of the political divide.

His main problem though is that people do not like change.
Ophelia
2018-01-05 20:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by James Harris
I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up so much
bandwidth that the government won't be able to do anything else. Yet
another reason not to honour the referendum, they think.
The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely shows that up.
He and his department are coming up with loads of policy changes to
improve life for the public.
In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round each government
department one at a time to redesign the way that department works.
Unfortunately, Gove does move around - leaving a mess behind him. He is
an idiot whose idea of policy is a few 'sound bites' on the proverbial
fag packet.
He is actually extremely bright and well educated, but not from a
privileged background - so of the type we could do with more of in
Parliament, on all sides of the political divide.
==

Indeed:

"He was brought up in a maisonette and, having shone at
primary school, secured a place at Aberdeen's best private school; he was
President of the Union at Oxford University, a reporter on the Radio 4
Today programme and a senior executive at The Times newspaper before
becoming an MP."

No Lords among his family!


His main problem though is that people do not like change.

It was ever thus!
Ophelia
2018-01-05 19:19:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"James Harris" wrote in message news:p2odkg$bsc$***@dont-email.me...

I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up so much
bandwidth that the government won't be able to do anything else. Yet
another reason not to honour the referendum, they think.

The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely shows that up.
He and his department are coming up with loads of policy changes to
improve life for the public.

In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round each government
department one at a time to redesign the way that department works.

James Harris

===

Sounds good to me:))
pamela
2018-01-06 09:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up so
much bandwidth that the government won't be able to do anything
else. Yet another reason not to honour the referendum, they
think.
The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely shows
that up. He and his department are coming up with loads of
policy changes to improve life for the public.
In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round each
government department one at a time to redesign the way that
department works.
Hello James.

Hope you are keeping well.

Happy New Year.
James Harris
2018-01-06 09:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up so
much bandwidth that the government won't be able to do anything
else. Yet another reason not to honour the referendum, they
think.
The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely shows
that up. He and his department are coming up with loads of
policy changes to improve life for the public.
In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round each
government department one at a time to redesign the way that
department works.
Hello James.
Hope you are keeping well.
Hello Pam, you too. Nice to hear from you again. Though I prefer it when
you are grumpy...! ;-)
--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-06 23:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up so
much bandwidth that the government won't be able to do
anything else. Yet another reason not to honour the
referendum, they think.
The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely shows
that up. He and his department are coming up with loads of
policy changes to improve life for the public.
In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round each
government department one at a time to redesign the way that
department works.
Hello James.
Hope you are keeping well.
Hello Pam, you too. Nice to hear from you again. Though I prefer
it when you are grumpy...! ;-)
Qui moi? :)

It will be interesting to see how the forthcoming trade negotiations
play out. Not just manufacturing but also fisheries and financial
services. Pass the popcorn. You might want to close your eyes.
--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
Norman Wells
2018-01-07 08:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
It will be interesting to see how the forthcoming trade negotiations
play out. Not just manufacturing but also fisheries and financial
services. Pass the popcorn. You might want to close your eyes.
You're in it too.
James Harris
2018-01-07 12:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up so
much bandwidth that the government won't be able to do
anything else. Yet another reason not to honour the
referendum, they think.
The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely shows
that up. He and his department are coming up with loads of
policy changes to improve life for the public.
In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round each
government department one at a time to redesign the way that
department works.
Hello James.
Hope you are keeping well.
Hello Pam, you too. Nice to hear from you again. Though I prefer
it when you are grumpy...! ;-)
Qui moi? :)
It will be interesting to see how the forthcoming trade negotiations
play out. Not just manufacturing but also fisheries and financial
services. Pass the popcorn. You might want to close your eyes.
Agreed. I expect our EU trade to end up worse than it is now.

What I'd add, though, is that to Brexiteers like me the UK's future
needs to be global. To illustrate, I just saw this this morning, from
"The Spectator Index":

Average annual GDP growth, past 30 years.

China: 9.4%
India: 6.6%
South Korea: 5.7%
Indonesia: 5.4%
Nigeria: 4.9%
Turkey: 4.6%
Saudi: 3.5%
Australia: 3.1%

and so on. https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/949909567353208833

As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point being that,
unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied full access to many of
such growth areas because the EU keeps such rights to itself and for
various reasons it has been rubbish at negotiating them. It still has no
trade deal with China, India, Indonesia and so on.

Put another way, I would suggest we are poorer /now/ than we should be,
and that is /because/ of us being members of the EU (and submitting to
its rules) rather than just trading with it. The EU might insist on
making us poorer in the short term as we leave. But as long as we have
sensible governments we should be able to become significantly richer in
the long term.

Given your financial experience I'd be interested in your view on that.
But don't worry ... I don't expect you to agree!
--
James Harris
tim...
2018-01-07 14:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up so
much bandwidth that the government won't be able to do
anything else. Yet another reason not to honour the
referendum, they think.
The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely shows
that up. He and his department are coming up with loads of
policy changes to improve life for the public.
In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round each
government department one at a time to redesign the way that
department works.
Hello James.
Hope you are keeping well.
Hello Pam, you too. Nice to hear from you again. Though I prefer
it when you are grumpy...! ;-)
Qui moi? :)
It will be interesting to see how the forthcoming trade negotiations
play out. Not just manufacturing but also fisheries and financial
services. Pass the popcorn. You might want to close your eyes.
Agreed. I expect our EU trade to end up worse than it is now.
What I'd add, though, is that to Brexiteers like me the UK's future needs
to be global. To illustrate, I just saw this this morning, from "The
Average annual GDP growth, past 30 years.
China: 9.4%
India: 6.6%
South Korea: 5.7%
Indonesia: 5.4%
Nigeria: 4.9%
Turkey: 4.6%
Saudi: 3.5%
Australia: 3.1%
and so on. https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/949909567353208833
As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point being that,
unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied full access to many of such
growth areas because the EU keeps such rights to itself and for various
reasons it has been rubbish at negotiating them. It still has no trade
deal with China, India,
because those counties want concession that are too big to give them

concession that we will be unlikely to agree to either

India as an example want visa rights for hundreds of thousands of its
workers whilst at the same time refusing to reduce tariffs on alcoholic
imports (the UK's largest agricultural export).

With a starting point like that the chances that there is a deal to be had
is zero.

These are the wrong countries to be targeting for agreements, they are lost
causes
James Harris
2018-01-07 16:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up so
much bandwidth that the government won't be able to do
anything else. Yet another reason not to honour the
referendum, they think.
The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely shows
that up. He and his department are coming up with loads of
policy changes to improve life for the public.
In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round each
government department one at a time to redesign the way that
department works.
Hello James.
Hope you are keeping well.
Hello Pam, you too. Nice to hear from you again. Though I prefer
it when you are grumpy...! ;-)
Qui moi? :)
It will be interesting to see how the forthcoming trade negotiations
play out. Not just manufacturing but also fisheries and financial
services. Pass the popcorn. You might want to close your eyes.
Agreed. I expect our EU trade to end up worse than it is now.
What I'd add, though, is that to Brexiteers like me the UK's future needs
to be global. To illustrate, I just saw this this morning, from "The
Average annual GDP growth, past 30 years.
China: 9.4%
India: 6.6%
South Korea: 5.7%
Indonesia: 5.4%
Nigeria: 4.9%
Turkey: 4.6%
Saudi: 3.5%
Australia: 3.1%
and so on. https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/949909567353208833
As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point being that,
unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied full access to many of such
growth areas because the EU keeps such rights to itself and for various
reasons it has been rubbish at negotiating them. It still has no trade
deal with China, India,
because those counties want concession that are too big to give them
concession that we will be unlikely to agree to either
India as an example want visa rights for hundreds of thousands of its
workers whilst at the same time refusing to reduce tariffs on alcoholic
imports (the UK's largest agricultural export).
With a starting point like that the chances that there is a deal to be had
is zero.
These are the wrong countries to be targeting for agreements, they are lost
causes
I don't agree at all! You are planning defeat before such negotiations
even begin.

Just because a country starts with a position that it wants X or Y as an
outcome does not mean that it will get that at the end of the
negotiations. The key thing to remember is that countries negotiate
because they have something to gain. In India's case, they have a lot to
gain from Britain, as they always have had, e.g. expertise and
top-quality education. Remember that although India has nearly 20 times
the population of the UK it has lower GDP! Put another way, with the
right changes India has the potential to become many times richer.
--
James Harris
tim...
2018-01-07 20:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by tim...
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up so
much bandwidth that the government won't be able to do
anything else. Yet another reason not to honour the
referendum, they think.
The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely shows
that up. He and his department are coming up with loads of
policy changes to improve life for the public.
In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round each
government department one at a time to redesign the way that
department works.
Hello James.
Hope you are keeping well.
Hello Pam, you too. Nice to hear from you again. Though I prefer
it when you are grumpy...! ;-)
Qui moi? :)
It will be interesting to see how the forthcoming trade negotiations
play out. Not just manufacturing but also fisheries and financial
services. Pass the popcorn. You might want to close your eyes.
Agreed. I expect our EU trade to end up worse than it is now.
What I'd add, though, is that to Brexiteers like me the UK's future needs
to be global. To illustrate, I just saw this this morning, from "The
Average annual GDP growth, past 30 years.
China: 9.4%
India: 6.6%
South Korea: 5.7%
Indonesia: 5.4%
Nigeria: 4.9%
Turkey: 4.6%
Saudi: 3.5%
Australia: 3.1%
and so on. https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/949909567353208833
As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point being that,
unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied full access to many of such
growth areas because the EU keeps such rights to itself and for various
reasons it has been rubbish at negotiating them. It still has no trade
deal with China, India,
because those counties want concession that are too big to give them
concession that we will be unlikely to agree to either
India as an example want visa rights for hundreds of thousands of its
workers whilst at the same time refusing to reduce tariffs on alcoholic
imports (the UK's largest agricultural export).
With a starting point like that the chances that there is a deal to be had
is zero.
These are the wrong countries to be targeting for agreements, they are lost
causes
I don't agree at all! You are planning defeat before such negotiations
even begin.
Just because a country starts with a position that it wants X or Y as an
FTAOD that wasn't India's position at the start of the negotiation

it was their position after several years of negotiation before the EU
realised that the only option was to throw in the towel
Post by James Harris
outcome does not mean that it will get that at the end of the
negotiations. The key thing to remember is that countries negotiate
because they have something to gain. In India's case, they have a lot to
gain from Britain, as they always have had, e.g. expertise and top-quality
education. Remember that although India has nearly 20 times the population
of the UK it has lower GDP! Put another way, with the right changes India
has the potential to become many times richer.
They don't see it like this

they just see a way to get 100,000 extra visas

tim
pamela
2018-01-08 15:13:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by James Harris
Post by tim...
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up
so much bandwidth that the government won't be able to do
anything else. Yet another reason not to honour the
referendum, they think.
The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely
shows that up. He and his department are coming up with
loads of policy changes to improve life for the public.
In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round
each government department one at a time to redesign the
way that department works.
Hello James.
Hope you are keeping well.
Hello Pam, you too. Nice to hear from you again. Though I
prefer it when you are grumpy...! ;-)
Qui moi? :)
It will be interesting to see how the forthcoming trade
negotiations play out. Not just manufacturing but also
fisheries and financial services. Pass the popcorn. You
might want to close your eyes.
Agreed. I expect our EU trade to end up worse than it is now.
What I'd add, though, is that to Brexiteers like me the UK's future needs
to be global. To illustrate, I just saw this this morning,
Average annual GDP growth, past 30 years.
China: 9.4%
India: 6.6%
South Korea: 5.7%
Indonesia: 5.4%
Nigeria: 4.9%
Turkey: 4.6%
Saudi: 3.5%
Australia: 3.1%
and so on.
https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/949909567353208833
As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point
being that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied
full access to many of such
growth areas because the EU keeps such rights to itself and
for various reasons it has been rubbish at negotiating them.
It still has no trade deal with China, India,
because those counties want concession that are too big to
give them
concession that we will be unlikely to agree to either
India as an example want visa rights for hundreds of thousands
of its workers whilst at the same time refusing to reduce
tariffs on alcoholic imports (the UK's largest agricultural
export).
With a starting point like that the chances that there is a
deal to be had
is zero.
These are the wrong countries to be targeting for agreements, they are lost
causes
I don't agree at all! You are planning defeat before such
negotiations even begin.
Just because a country starts with a position that it wants X
or Y as an
FTAOD that wasn't India's position at the start of the
negotiation
it was their position after several years of negotiation before
the EU realised that the only option was to throw in the towel
Post by James Harris
outcome does not mean that it will get that at the end of the
negotiations. The key thing to remember is that countries
negotiate because they have something to gain. In India's case,
they have a lot to gain from Britain, as they always have had,
e.g. expertise and top-quality education. Remember that
although India has nearly 20 times the population of the UK it
has lower GDP! Put another way, with the right changes India
has the potential to become many times richer.
They don't see it like this
they just see a way to get 100,000 extra visas
tim
That's very true. If unrealised potential, such as India's, were
sufficient to make a country our major trading partner then we
should look at Nigeria.

Oops, we did look at Nigeria because it was a colony of ours right
until about a decade before we joined the Common Market. Nigeria's
potential has never been anything remotely like reached and it
doesn't look set to change either. Ditto India. Ditto Bongo-
Bongo Land.
--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
pamela
2018-01-07 20:38:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up
so much bandwidth that the government won't be able to do
anything else. Yet another reason not to honour the
referendum, they think.
The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely
shows that up. He and his department are coming up with
loads of policy changes to improve life for the public.
In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round
each government department one at a time to redesign the
way that department works.
Hello James.
Hope you are keeping well.
Hello Pam, you too. Nice to hear from you again. Though I
prefer it when you are grumpy...! ;-)
Qui moi? :)
It will be interesting to see how the forthcoming trade
negotiations play out. Not just manufacturing but also
fisheries and financial services. Pass the popcorn. You
might want to close your eyes.
Agreed. I expect our EU trade to end up worse than it is now.
What I'd add, though, is that to Brexiteers like me the UK's
future needs to be global. To illustrate, I just saw this this
Average annual GDP growth, past 30 years.
China: 9.4%
India: 6.6%
South Korea: 5.7%
Indonesia: 5.4%
Nigeria: 4.9%
Turkey: 4.6%
Saudi: 3.5%
Australia: 3.1%
and so on.
https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/949909567353208833
As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point being
that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied full access
to many of such growth areas because the EU keeps such rights
to itself and for various reasons it has been rubbish at
negotiating them. It still has no trade deal with China, India,
because those counties want concession that are too big to give them
concession that we will be unlikely to agree to either
India as an example want visa rights for hundreds of thousands
of its workers whilst at the same time refusing to reduce
tariffs on alcoholic imports (the UK's largest agricultural
export).
With a starting point like that the chances that there is a deal
to be had is zero.
These are the wrong countries to be targeting for agreements,
they are lost causes
I have to agree with all of that, especially if we are not trading
under WTO rules.

Back in the old days there were all sorts of tariffs and quotas as
a result of all manner of horse trading between countries who were
trying to satisfy pressure groups or corruption as well as
business needs.

Trade has become significantly more competitive than when we
joined the Common Market and the idea we can hitch on the coat
tails of rapidly growing third world countries and share in their
bounty is completely nuts.
--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-09 13:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up so
much bandwidth that the government won't be able to do
anything else. Yet another reason not to honour the
referendum, they think.
The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely shows
that up. He and his department are coming up with loads of
policy changes to improve life for the public.
In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round each
government department one at a time to redesign the way that
department works.
Hello James.
Hope you are keeping well.
Hello Pam, you too. Nice to hear from you again. Though I prefer
it when you are grumpy...! ;-)
Qui moi? :)
It will be interesting to see how the forthcoming trade negotiations
play out. Not just manufacturing but also fisheries and financial
services. Pass the popcorn. You might want to close your eyes.
Agreed. I expect our EU trade to end up worse than it is now.
What I'd add, though, is that to Brexiteers like me the UK's future
needs to be global. To illustrate, I just saw this this morning, from
Average annual GDP growth, past 30 years.
China: 9.4%
India: 6.6%
South Korea: 5.7%
Indonesia: 5.4%
Nigeria: 4.9%
Turkey: 4.6%
Saudi: 3.5%
Australia: 3.1%
and so on. https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/949909567353208833
As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point being that,
unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied full access to many of
such growth areas because the EU keeps such rights to itself and for
various reasons it has been rubbish at negotiating them. It still has no
trade deal with China, India, Indonesia and so on.
Put another way, I would suggest we are poorer /now/ than we should be,
and that is /because/ of us being members of the EU (and submitting to
its rules) rather than just trading with it. The EU might insist on
making us poorer in the short term as we leave. But as long as we have
sensible governments we should be able to become significantly richer in
the long term.
Given your financial experience I'd be interested in your view on that.
But don't worry ... I don't expect you to agree!
It's a pity that Pam didn't even try to reply to that.
--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-11 15:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up
so much bandwidth that the government won't be able to do
anything else. Yet another reason not to honour the
referendum, they think.
The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely
shows that up. He and his department are coming up with
loads of policy changes to improve life for the public.
In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round
each government department one at a time to redesign the
way that department works.
Hello James.
Hope you are keeping well.
Hello Pam, you too. Nice to hear from you again. Though I
prefer it when you are grumpy...! ;-)
Qui moi? :)
It will be interesting to see how the forthcoming trade
negotiations play out. Not just manufacturing but also
fisheries and financial services. Pass the popcorn. You
might want to close your eyes.
Agreed. I expect our EU trade to end up worse than it is now.
What I'd add, though, is that to Brexiteers like me the UK's
future needs to be global. To illustrate, I just saw this this
Average annual GDP growth, past 30 years.
China: 9.4%
India: 6.6%
South Korea: 5.7%
Indonesia: 5.4%
Nigeria: 4.9%
Turkey: 4.6%
Saudi: 3.5%
Australia: 3.1%
and so on.
https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/949909567353208833
As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point being
that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied full access
to many of such growth areas because the EU keeps such rights
to itself and for various reasons it has been rubbish at
negotiating them. It still has no trade deal with China, India,
Indonesia and so on.
Put another way, I would suggest we are poorer /now/ than we
should be, and that is /because/ of us being members of the EU
(and submitting to its rules) rather than just trading with it.
The EU might insist on making us poorer in the short term as we
leave. But as long as we have sensible governments we should be
able to become significantly richer in the long term.
Given your financial experience I'd be interested in your view
on that. But don't worry ... I don't expect you to agree!
It's a pity that Pam didn't even try to reply to that.
Hello James. Too much of what you usually write, if you will
forgive me saying, is inspired baloney. Perhaps you derive your
ideas from first prinicples and work hard to develop them you seem
to lack base understanding.

The very notion that the UK can now generate its own substantial
economic growth simply from being allowed to trade with fast
growing third world countries is too weird to deserve comment.

Also, I don't know where to start with the following:

"denied full access to many of such growth areas".
"The EU might insist on making us poorer in the short term"
"able to become significantly richer"

Puh-leeze. I have better things to do that engage with this sort
of stuff.
--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-11 17:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up
so much bandwidth that the government won't be able to do
anything else. Yet another reason not to honour the
referendum, they think.
The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely
shows that up. He and his department are coming up with
loads of policy changes to improve life for the public.
In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round
each government department one at a time to redesign the
way that department works.
Hello James.
Hope you are keeping well.
Hello Pam, you too. Nice to hear from you again. Though I
prefer it when you are grumpy...! ;-)
Qui moi? :)
It will be interesting to see how the forthcoming trade
negotiations play out. Not just manufacturing but also
fisheries and financial services. Pass the popcorn. You
might want to close your eyes.
Agreed. I expect our EU trade to end up worse than it is now.
What I'd add, though, is that to Brexiteers like me the UK's
future needs to be global. To illustrate, I just saw this this
Average annual GDP growth, past 30 years.
China: 9.4%
India: 6.6%
South Korea: 5.7%
Indonesia: 5.4%
Nigeria: 4.9%
Turkey: 4.6%
Saudi: 3.5%
Australia: 3.1%
and so on.
https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/949909567353208833
As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point being
that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied full access
to many of such growth areas because the EU keeps such rights
to itself and for various reasons it has been rubbish at
negotiating them. It still has no trade deal with China, India,
Indonesia and so on.
Put another way, I would suggest we are poorer /now/ than we
should be, and that is /because/ of us being members of the EU
(and submitting to its rules) rather than just trading with it.
The EU might insist on making us poorer in the short term as we
leave. But as long as we have sensible governments we should be
able to become significantly richer in the long term.
Given your financial experience I'd be interested in your view
on that. But don't worry ... I don't expect you to agree!
It's a pity that Pam didn't even try to reply to that.
Hello James. Too much of what you usually write, if you will
forgive me saying, is inspired baloney.
Don't feel bad. I regard you similarly. :-(
Post by pamela
Perhaps you derive your
ideas from first prinicples and work hard to develop them you seem
to lack base understanding.
The very notion that the UK can now generate its own substantial
economic growth simply from being allowed to trade with fast
growing third world countries is too weird to deserve comment.
That wasn't my claim. As I said in reply to another post, ISTM you set
up false positions to attack.
Post by pamela
"denied full access to many of such growth areas".
"The EU might insist on making us poorer in the short term"
"able to become significantly richer"
Puh-leeze. I have better things to do that engage with this sort
of stuff.
Pity. I am quite willing to defend them but there's no point doing so as
you are so busy.
--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-11 20:19:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
........
Agreed. I expect our EU trade to end up worse than it is now.
What I'd add, though, is that to Brexiteers like me the UK's
future needs to be global. To illustrate, I just saw this
Average annual GDP growth, past 30 years.
China: 9.4% India: 6.6% South Korea: 5.7% Indonesia: 5.4%
Nigeria: 4.9% Turkey: 4.6% Saudi: 3.5% Australia: 3.1%
and so on.
https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/949909567353208833
As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point
being that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied
full access to many of such growth areas because the EU keeps
such rights to itself and for various reasons it has been
rubbish at negotiating them. It still has no trade deal with
China, India, Indonesia and so on.
Put another way, I would suggest we are poorer /now/ than we
should be, and that is /because/ of us being members of the
EU (and submitting to its rules) rather than just trading
with it. The EU might insist on making us poorer in the short
term as we leave. But as long as we have sensible governments
we should be able to become significantly richer in the long
term.
Given your financial experience I'd be interested in your
view on that. But don't worry ... I don't expect you to
agree!
It's a pity that Pam didn't even try to reply to that.
Hello James. Too much of what you usually write, if you will
forgive me saying, is inspired baloney.
Don't feel bad. I regard you similarly. :-(
Post by pamela
Perhaps you derive your ideas from first prinicples and work
hard to develop them you seem to lack base understanding.
The very notion that the UK can now generate its own
substantial economic growth simply from being allowed to trade
with fast growing third world countries is too weird to deserve
comment.
That wasn't my claim. As I said in reply to another post, ISTM
you set up false positions to attack.
You wrote (above) alist of growth figures and said:

"As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point being
that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied full access
to many of such growth areas ..."

I replied:

"The very notion that the UK can now generate its own
substantial economic growth simply from being allowed to trade
with fast growing third world countries is too weird to deserve
comment."
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
"denied full access to many of such growth areas". "The EU
might insist on making us poorer in the short term"
"able to become significantly richer"
Puh-leeze. I have better things to do that engage with this
sort of stuff.
Pity. I am quite willing to defend them but there's no point
doing so as you are so busy.
Defend with as much energy as you like: it won't change something
from being wrong to being right.
--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-11 21:52:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
........
Agreed. I expect our EU trade to end up worse than it is now.
What I'd add, though, is that to Brexiteers like me the UK's
future needs to be global. To illustrate, I just saw this
Average annual GDP growth, past 30 years.
China: 9.4% India: 6.6% South Korea: 5.7% Indonesia: 5.4%
Nigeria: 4.9% Turkey: 4.6% Saudi: 3.5% Australia: 3.1%
and so on.
https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/949909567353208833
As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point
being that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied
full access to many of such growth areas because the EU keeps
such rights to itself and for various reasons it has been
rubbish at negotiating them. It still has no trade deal with
China, India, Indonesia and so on.
Put another way, I would suggest we are poorer /now/ than we
should be, and that is /because/ of us being members of the
EU (and submitting to its rules) rather than just trading
with it. The EU might insist on making us poorer in the short
term as we leave. But as long as we have sensible governments
we should be able to become significantly richer in the long
term.
Given your financial experience I'd be interested in your
view on that. But don't worry ... I don't expect you to
agree!
It's a pity that Pam didn't even try to reply to that.
Hello James. Too much of what you usually write, if you will
forgive me saying, is inspired baloney.
Don't feel bad. I regard you similarly. :-(
Post by pamela
Perhaps you derive your ideas from first prinicples
(BTW, that may be true, although I would call it more about simplicity
and logic.)
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
and work
hard to develop them you seem to lack base understanding.
The very notion that the UK can now generate its own
substantial economic growth simply from being allowed to trade
with fast growing third world countries is too weird to deserve
comment.
That wasn't my claim. As I said in reply to another post, ISTM
you set up false positions to attack.
"As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point being
that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied full access
to many of such growth areas ..."
"The very notion that the UK can now generate its own
substantial economic growth simply from being allowed to trade
with fast growing third world countries is too weird to deserve
comment."
Sure, but I didn't say we could generate substantial economic growth
simply from being allowed to trade with them. The point is that due to
at least three factors the EU has been bad (terrible) at opening up new
global trade and has missed markets that with the freedom to negotiate
on our own behalf we could have got. In other words, we have had to deal
with some of the new markets on WTO terms when on our own we could have
traded under FTAs for at least some of them. The EU has held us back.
--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-11 22:24:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
........
Agreed. I expect our EU trade to end up worse than it is
now.
What I'd add, though, is that to Brexiteers like me the
UK's future needs to be global. To illustrate, I just saw
Average annual GDP growth, past 30 years.
China: 9.4% India: 6.6% South Korea: 5.7% Indonesia: 5.4%
Nigeria: 4.9% Turkey: 4.6% Saudi: 3.5% Australia: 3.1%
and so on.
https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/949909567353208833
As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point
being that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied
full access to many of such growth areas because the EU
keeps such rights to itself and for various reasons it has
been rubbish at negotiating them. It still has no trade
deal with China, India, Indonesia and so on.
Put another way, I would suggest we are poorer /now/ than
we should be, and that is /because/ of us being members of
the EU (and submitting to its rules) rather than just
trading with it. The EU might insist on making us poorer in
the short term as we leave. But as long as we have sensible
governments we should be able to become significantly
richer in the long term.
Given your financial experience I'd be interested in your
view on that. But don't worry ... I don't expect you to
agree!
It's a pity that Pam didn't even try to reply to that.
Hello James. Too much of what you usually write, if you will
forgive me saying, is inspired baloney.
Don't feel bad. I regard you similarly. :-(
Post by pamela
Perhaps you derive your ideas from first prinicples
(BTW, that may be true, although I would call it more about
simplicity and logic.)
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
and work
hard to develop them you seem to lack base understanding.
The very notion that the UK can now generate its own
substantial economic growth simply from being allowed to
trade with fast growing third world countries is too weird to
deserve comment.
That wasn't my claim. As I said in reply to another post, ISTM
you set up false positions to attack.
"As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point
being that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied
full access to many of such growth areas ..."
"The very notion that the UK can now generate its own
substantial economic growth simply from being allowed to
trade with fast growing third world countries is too weird
to deserve comment."
Sure, but I didn't say we could generate substantial economic
growth simply from being allowed to trade with them. The point
is that due to at least three factors the EU has been bad
(terrible) at opening up new global trade and has missed markets
that with the freedom to negotiate on our own behalf we could
have got. In other words, we have had to deal with some of the
new markets on WTO terms when on our own we could have traded
under FTAs for at least some of them. The EU has held us back.
So the UK will spring forth unchained and create for itself a
thundering economic boom after Brexit, the likes of which have not
been seen since we joined in 1973? Or something like that. Yeah,
right.

You quoted fast growing economies and said, "The point being that,
unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied full access to many
of such growth areas".

Trading with a fast growing country doesn't mean we become fast
growing! If that were the case China would have lifted its trading
partners in the last few decades to dizzy heights of wealth.
--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-11 22:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
........
Agreed. I expect our EU trade to end up worse than it is
now.
What I'd add, though, is that to Brexiteers like me the
UK's future needs to be global. To illustrate, I just saw
Average annual GDP growth, past 30 years.
China: 9.4% India: 6.6% South Korea: 5.7% Indonesia: 5.4%
Nigeria: 4.9% Turkey: 4.6% Saudi: 3.5% Australia: 3.1%
and so on.
https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/949909567353208833
As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point
being that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied
full access to many of such growth areas because the EU
keeps such rights to itself and for various reasons it has
been rubbish at negotiating them. It still has no trade
deal with China, India, Indonesia and so on.
Put another way, I would suggest we are poorer /now/ than
we should be, and that is /because/ of us being members of
the EU (and submitting to its rules) rather than just
trading with it. The EU might insist on making us poorer in
the short term as we leave. But as long as we have sensible
governments we should be able to become significantly
richer in the long term.
Given your financial experience I'd be interested in your
view on that. But don't worry ... I don't expect you to
agree!
It's a pity that Pam didn't even try to reply to that.
Hello James. Too much of what you usually write, if you will
forgive me saying, is inspired baloney.
Don't feel bad. I regard you similarly. :-(
Post by pamela
Perhaps you derive your ideas from first prinicples
(BTW, that may be true, although I would call it more about
simplicity and logic.)
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
and work
hard to develop them you seem to lack base understanding.
The very notion that the UK can now generate its own
substantial economic growth simply from being allowed to
trade with fast growing third world countries is too weird to
deserve comment.
That wasn't my claim. As I said in reply to another post, ISTM
you set up false positions to attack.
"As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point
being that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied
full access to many of such growth areas ..."
"The very notion that the UK can now generate its own
substantial economic growth simply from being allowed to
trade with fast growing third world countries is too weird
to deserve comment."
Sure, but I didn't say we could generate substantial economic
growth simply from being allowed to trade with them. The point
is that due to at least three factors the EU has been bad
(terrible) at opening up new global trade and has missed markets
that with the freedom to negotiate on our own behalf we could
have got. In other words, we have had to deal with some of the
new markets on WTO terms when on our own we could have traded
under FTAs for at least some of them. The EU has held us back.
So the UK will spring forth unchained and create for itself a
thundering economic boom after Brexit, the likes of which have not
been seen since we joined in 1973? Or something like that. Yeah,
right.
You live in an internal world of fantasy! I didn't say any of that!
Post by pamela
You quoted fast growing economies and said, "The point being that,
unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied full access to many
of such growth areas".
Trading with a fast growing country doesn't mean we become fast
growing! If that were the case China would have lifted its trading
partners in the last few decades to dizzy heights of wealth.
Correct, it doesn't. I suggest to you that the large established
economies are beneficial for their volume and that the growing economies
are looking for such as skills and services to help then grow. Both are
good to partner with.
--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-11 23:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
........
Agreed. I expect our EU trade to end up worse than it is now.
What I'd add, though, is that to Brexiteers like me the
UK's future needs to be global. To illustrate, I just saw
Average annual GDP growth, past 30 years.
China: 9.4% India: 6.6% South Korea: 5.7% Indonesia: 5.4%
Nigeria: 4.9% Turkey: 4.6% Saudi: 3.5% Australia: 3.1%
and so on.
https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/9499095673532088
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
33
As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point
being that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied
full access to many of such growth areas because the EU
keeps such rights to itself and for various reasons it
has been rubbish at negotiating them. It still has no
trade deal with China, India, Indonesia and so on.
Put another way, I would suggest we are poorer /now/ than
we should be, and that is /because/ of us being members
of the EU (and submitting to its rules) rather than just
trading with it. The EU might insist on making us poorer
in the short term as we leave. But as long as we have
sensible governments we should be able to become
significantly richer in the long term.
Given your financial experience I'd be interested in your
view on that. But don't worry ... I don't expect you to
agree!
It's a pity that Pam didn't even try to reply to that.
Hello James. Too much of what you usually write, if you
will forgive me saying, is inspired baloney.
Don't feel bad. I regard you similarly. :-(
Post by pamela
Perhaps you derive your ideas from first prinicples
(BTW, that may be true, although I would call it more about
simplicity and logic.)
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
and work
hard to develop them you seem to lack base understanding.
The very notion that the UK can now generate its own
substantial economic growth simply from being allowed to
trade with fast growing third world countries is too weird
to deserve comment.
That wasn't my claim. As I said in reply to another post,
ISTM you set up false positions to attack.
"As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The
point being that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been
denied full access to many of such growth areas ..."
"The very notion that the UK can now generate its own
substantial economic growth simply from being allowed to
trade with fast growing third world countries is too
weird to deserve comment."
Sure, but I didn't say we could generate substantial economic
growth simply from being allowed to trade with them. The point
is that due to at least three factors the EU has been bad
(terrible) at opening up new global trade and has missed
markets that with the freedom to negotiate on our own behalf
we could have got. In other words, we have had to deal with
some of the new markets on WTO terms when on our own we could
have traded under FTAs for at least some of them. The EU has
held us back.
So the UK will spring forth unchained and create for itself a
thundering economic boom after Brexit, the likes of which have
not been seen since we joined in 1973? Or something like that.
Yeah, right.
You live in an internal world of fantasy! I didn't say any of
that!
Post by pamela
You quoted fast growing economies and said, "The point being
that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied full access
to many of such growth areas".
Trading with a fast growing country doesn't mean we become fast
growing! If that were the case China would have lifted its
trading partners in the last few decades to dizzy heights of
wealth.
Correct, it doesn't. I suggest to you that the large established
economies are beneficial for their volume and that the growing
economies are looking for such as skills and services to help
then grow. Both are good to partner with.
So, what's new? What is Brexit going to change which makes this
situation into a massively more advantageous economic proposition
for us?

High growth developing countries have existed for a long time and
we, along with other EU countries, have traded with them for a
long time.

There is no certainty whatsoever that WTO rules trading after
Brexit is more profitable for us. Also the special arrangements
required to satisfy interested parties, which are prevalent in the
developing world, can form a cat's cradle of interdependencies
which strangle trade growth.
--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-12 17:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Trading with a fast growing country doesn't mean we become fast
growing! If that were the case China would have lifted its
trading partners in the last few decades to dizzy heights of
wealth.
Correct, it doesn't. I suggest to you that the large established
economies are beneficial for their volume and that the growing
economies are looking for such as skills and services to help
then grow. Both are good to partner with.
So, what's new? What is Brexit going to change which makes this
situation into a massively more advantageous economic proposition
for us?
Can I give you a tip? Try asking me to justify something I've said
rather than something you've made up!
Post by pamela
High growth developing countries have existed for a long time and
we, along with other EU countries, have traded with them for a
long time.
There is no certainty whatsoever that WTO rules trading after
Brexit is more profitable for us. Also the special arrangements
required to satisfy interested parties, which are prevalent in the
developing world, can form a cat's cradle of interdependencies
which strangle trade growth.
--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-12 21:51:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Trading with a fast growing country doesn't mean we become
fast growing! If that were the case China would have lifted
its trading partners in the last few decades to dizzy heights
of wealth.
Correct, it doesn't. I suggest to you that the large
established economies are beneficial for their volume and that
the growing economies are looking for such as skills and
services to help then grow. Both are good to partner with.
So, what's new? What is Brexit going to change which makes
this situation into a massively more advantageous economic
proposition for us?
Can I give you a tip? Try asking me to justify something I've
said rather than something you've made up!
Please re-make your point about the fast growing developing
nations you listed and explain how they are going to help the
British economy after Brexit. Tell me why you think this is a
significantly large factor such that you mention it.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
High growth developing countries have existed for a long time
and we, along with other EU countries, have traded with them
for a long time.
There is no certainty whatsoever that WTO rules trading after
Brexit is more profitable for us. Also the special
arrangements required to satisfy interested parties, which are
prevalent in the developing world, can form a cat's cradle of
interdependencies which strangle trade growth.
-- The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-12 23:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Trading with a fast growing country doesn't mean we become
fast growing! If that were the case China would have lifted
its trading partners in the last few decades to dizzy heights
of wealth.
Correct, it doesn't. I suggest to you that the large
established economies are beneficial for their volume and that
the growing economies are looking for such as skills and
services to help then grow. Both are good to partner with.
So, what's new? What is Brexit going to change which makes
this situation into a massively more advantageous economic
proposition for us?
Can I give you a tip? Try asking me to justify something I've
said rather than something you've made up!
Please re-make your point about the fast growing developing
nations you listed and explain how they are going to help the
British economy after Brexit. Tell me why you think this is a
significantly large factor such that you mention it.
I didn't say they were. Here's what I said in that post. Note the tense.

--- start ---
As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point being that,
unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied full access to many of
such growth areas because the EU keeps such rights to itself and for
various reasons it has been rubbish at negotiating them. It still has no
trade deal with China, India, Indonesia and so on.

Put another way, I would suggest we are poorer /now/ than we should be,
and that is /because/ of us being members of the EU (and submitting to
its rules) rather than just trading with it. The EU might insist on
making us poorer in the short term as we leave. But as long as we have
sensible governments we should be able to become significantly richer in
the long term.
--- end of earlier text ---

That seems clear enough to me. I was saying that while you may think
that our EU membership has helped us with the single market (it has) it
has also denied us unfettered access to the developing markets I listed
because it has struck no trade deals with them.

Think about that: we've been in for over 40 years and in all that time
(40 years, forty!) the EU has not negotiated trade liberalisation deals
with either the major economies of the world or some of the fastest
growing. That is surely an incredible statistic and is a stain on the
EU's supposed value as a commercial entity.

Hence I repeat, we are poorer now than we should be because we are
members of the EU. It's economically worth leaving in the long term so
we can regain control of our trade policy.
--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-13 11:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Trading with a fast growing country doesn't mean we become
fast growing! If that were the case China would have
lifted its trading partners in the last few decades to
dizzy heights of wealth.
Correct, it doesn't. I suggest to you that the large
established economies are beneficial for their volume and
that the growing economies are looking for such as skills
and services to help then grow. Both are good to partner
with.
So, what's new? What is Brexit going to change which makes
this situation into a massively more advantageous economic
proposition for us?
Can I give you a tip? Try asking me to justify something I've
said rather than something you've made up!
Please re-make your point about the fast growing developing
nations you listed and explain how they are going to help the
British economy after Brexit. Tell me why you think this is a
significantly large factor such that you mention it.
I didn't say they were. Here's what I said in that post. Note
the tense.
--- start ---
As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point being
that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied full access
to many of such growth areas because the EU keeps such rights to
itself and for various reasons it has been rubbish at
negotiating them. It still has no trade deal with China, India,
Indonesia and so on.
Put another way, I would suggest we are poorer /now/ than we
should be, and that is /because/ of us being members of the EU
(and submitting to its rules) rather than just trading with it.
The EU might insist on making us poorer in the short term as we
leave. But as long as we have sensible governments we should be
able to become significantly richer in the long term.
--- end of earlier text ---
That seems clear enough to me. I was saying that while you may
think that our EU membership has helped us with the single
market (it has) it has also denied us unfettered access to the
developing markets I listed because it has struck no trade deals
with them.
The problem I have with your point is not that there will be a bit
more uncontrolled trade to fast-growing developing countries but
that, as you claim, it is so valuable.

That is why I ask, "What is Brexit going to change which makes
this situation into a massively more advantageous economic
proposition for us?"

You then contend I am exaggerating your contention but I don't
think I am. If you don't like the word "massively" then change it
to "significantly". Whatever you call it, I am at a loss to know
how post-Brexit trading with -growing developing countries si
going to change out economic outlook.

As an example of the non-existence of benefits of trading with a
fast-growing developing country, I gave you the example of China's
trading partners who have not become greatly more wealthy on
account of their trade with China.
Post by James Harris
Think about that: we've been in for over 40 years and in all
that time (40 years, forty!) the EU has not negotiated trade
liberalisation deals with either the major economies of the
world or some of the fastest growing.
That's rubbish. The EU is making new trade agreements with such
countries the whole time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
Post by James Harris
That is surely an
incredible statistic and is a stain on the EU's supposed value
as a commercial entity.
Only in your head.
Post by James Harris
Hence I repeat, we are poorer now than we should be because we
are members of the EU. It's economically worth leaving in the
long term so we can regain control of our trade policy.
"Regaining control" means relinquishing very many commerically
advantageous arrangements. The new "control" does not translate
directly to better deals.
--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-14 16:57:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Trading with a fast growing country doesn't mean we become
fast growing! If that were the case China would have
lifted its trading partners in the last few decades to
dizzy heights of wealth.
Correct, it doesn't. I suggest to you that the large
established economies are beneficial for their volume and
that the growing economies are looking for such as skills
and services to help then grow. Both are good to partner
with.
So, what's new? What is Brexit going to change which makes
this situation into a massively more advantageous economic
proposition for us?
Can I give you a tip? Try asking me to justify something I've
said rather than something you've made up!
Please re-make your point about the fast growing developing
nations you listed and explain how they are going to help the
British economy after Brexit. Tell me why you think this is a
significantly large factor such that you mention it.
I didn't say they were. Here's what I said in that post. Note
the tense.
--- start ---
As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point being
that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied full access
to many of such growth areas because the EU keeps such rights to
itself and for various reasons it has been rubbish at
negotiating them. It still has no trade deal with China, India,
Indonesia and so on.
Put another way, I would suggest we are poorer /now/ than we
should be, and that is /because/ of us being members of the EU
(and submitting to its rules) rather than just trading with it.
The EU might insist on making us poorer in the short term as we
leave. But as long as we have sensible governments we should be
able to become significantly richer in the long term.
--- end of earlier text ---
That seems clear enough to me. I was saying that while you may
think that our EU membership has helped us with the single
market (it has) it has also denied us unfettered access to the
developing markets I listed because it has struck no trade deals
with them.
The problem I have with your point is not that there will be a bit
more uncontrolled trade to fast-growing developing countries but
that, as you claim, it is so valuable.
Well, my point was not directly about the future but about what we have
_already_ missed out on because of being bound by the Common Commercial
Policy of the EU's customs union. But I think it's very clear that we
would build up new global trade deals on our own far faster than we
would get them as EU members, and I think we can be confident of that
for three reasons: (1) The UK's instincts are to be business-friendly,
regulation-light, low-tax, entrepreneurial, outward-looking, and open to
trade; NONE of which are EU priorities! (2) The EU has repeatedly
demonstrated that it is poor at opening up such trade. (3) Individual
countries outside the EU have opened up bigger global trade deals than
the entire EU has; and if they can do it so can we.
Post by pamela
That is why I ask, "What is Brexit going to change which makes
this situation into a massively more advantageous economic
proposition for us?"
I didn't say massively more. AISI Brexit will initially cause us to drop
back in our trade, though perhaps not by much. But more importantly it
will move us from the slow lane to the fast lane. And that would
obviously be better for the long term.

The small reduction in growth now will be more than rewarded by faster
progress. Even the pessimistic BoE governor Mark Carney recently
described Brexit as a step back to leap forward. Maybe even Remainers
are coming round to the idea. The disruption of the change is worth it.
Post by pamela
You then contend I am exaggerating your contention but I don't
think I am. If you don't like the word "massively" then change it
to "significantly". Whatever you call it, I am at a loss to know
how post-Brexit trading with -growing developing countries si
going to change out economic outlook.
Hopefully, I've answered that now: Brexit will cause an initial dip (or
more likely no dip but only lower growth) but allow us thereafter to
make faster progress. That's not unreasonable. To use an analogy, a
business might decide to restructure itself. The change will cost it
money and its performance will be reduced. But the change is worth doing
because the new structure will allow it to grow more quickly.
Post by pamela
As an example of the non-existence of benefits of trading with a
fast-growing developing country, I gave you the example of China's
trading partners who have not become greatly more wealthy on
account of their trade with China.
Post by James Harris
Think about that: we've been in for over 40 years and in all
that time (40 years, forty!) the EU has not negotiated trade
liberalisation deals with either the major economies of the
world or some of the fastest growing.
That's rubbish. The EU is making new trade agreements with such
countries the whole time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
Yeah, work in progress. How can the big-money tickets still be work in
progress after 40 years?
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
That is surely an
incredible statistic and is a stain on the EU's supposed value
as a commercial entity.
Only in your head.
Post by James Harris
Hence I repeat, we are poorer now than we should be because we
are members of the EU. It's economically worth leaving in the
long term so we can regain control of our trade policy.
"Regaining control" means relinquishing very many commerically
advantageous arrangements. The new "control" does not translate
directly to better deals.
In the short term, no, although it seems that the 40-ish deals we have
with the EU are to be grandfathered so Remain warnings about them are
looking as trustworthy as their other predictions.

Plus there are other countries who have _already_ indicated they are
keen to build new trade deals with us. For sure, we can build up new
trade much faster outside the EU. It's worth doing. Well worth it!
--
James Harris
pamela
2018-01-14 21:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Trading with a fast growing country doesn't mean we
become fast growing! If that were the case China would
have lifted its trading partners in the last few decades
to dizzy heights of wealth.
Correct, it doesn't. I suggest to you that the large
established economies are beneficial for their volume and
that the growing economies are looking for such as skills
and services to help then grow. Both are good to partner
with.
So, what's new? What is Brexit going to change which makes
this situation into a massively more advantageous economic
proposition for us?
Can I give you a tip? Try asking me to justify something
I've said rather than something you've made up!
Please re-make your point about the fast growing developing
nations you listed and explain how they are going to help the
British economy after Brexit. Tell me why you think this is
a significantly large factor such that you mention it.
I didn't say they were. Here's what I said in that post. Note the tense.
--- start ---
As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point being
that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied full
access to many of such growth areas because the EU keeps such
rights to itself and for various reasons it has been rubbish
at negotiating them. It still has no trade deal with China,
India, Indonesia and so on.
Put another way, I would suggest we are poorer /now/ than we
should be, and that is /because/ of us being members of the EU
(and submitting to its rules) rather than just trading with
it. The EU might insist on making us poorer in the short term
as we leave. But as long as we have sensible governments we
should be able to become significantly richer in the long
term.
--- end of earlier text ---
That seems clear enough to me. I was saying that while you may
think that our EU membership has helped us with the single
market (it has) it has also denied us unfettered access to the
developing markets I listed because it has struck no trade
deals with them.
The problem I have with your point is not that there will be a
bit more uncontrolled trade to fast-growing developing
countries but that, as you claim, it is so valuable.
Well, my point was not directly about the future but about what
we have _already_ missed out on because of being bound by the
Common Commercial Policy of the EU's customs union. But I think
it's very clear that we would build up new global trade deals on
our own far faster than we would get them as EU members, and I
think we can be confident of that for three reasons: (1) The
UK's instincts are to be business-friendly, regulation-light,
low-tax, entrepreneurial, outward-looking, and open to trade;
NONE of which are EU priorities! (2) The EU has repeatedly
demonstrated that it is poor at opening up such trade. (3)
Individual countries outside the EU have opened up bigger global
trade deals than the entire EU has; and if they can do it so can
we.
Post by pamela
That is why I ask, "What is Brexit going to change which makes
this situation into a massively more advantageous economic
proposition for us?"
I didn't say massively more. AISI Brexit will initially cause us
to drop back in our trade, though perhaps not by much. But more
importantly it will move us from the slow lane to the fast lane.
And that would obviously be better for the long term.
The small reduction in growth now will be more than rewarded by
faster progress. Even the pessimistic BoE governor Mark Carney
recently described Brexit as a step back to leap forward. Maybe
even Remainers are coming round to the idea. The disruption of
the change is worth it.
Post by pamela
You then contend I am exaggerating your contention but I don't
think I am. If you don't like the word "massively" then change
it to "significantly". Whatever you call it, I am at a loss to
know how post-Brexit trading with -growing developing countries
si going to change out economic outlook.
Hopefully, I've answered that now: Brexit will cause an initial
dip (or more likely no dip but only lower growth) but allow us
thereafter to make faster progress. That's not unreasonable. To
use an analogy, a business might decide to restructure itself.
The change will cost it money and its performance will be
reduced. But the change is worth doing because the new structure
will allow it to grow more quickly.
Post by pamela
As an example of the non-existence of benefits of trading with
a fast-growing developing country, I gave you the example of
China's trading partners who have not become greatly more
wealthy on account of their trade with China.
Post by James Harris
Think about that: we've been in for over 40 years and in all
that time (40 years, forty!) the EU has not negotiated trade
liberalisation deals with either the major economies of the
world or some of the fastest growing.
That's rubbish. The EU is making new trade agreements with
such countries the whole time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreemen
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
ts
Yeah, work in progress. How can the big-money tickets still be
work in progress after 40 years?
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
That is surely an
incredible statistic and is a stain on the EU's supposed value
as a commercial entity.
Only in your head.
Post by James Harris
Hence I repeat, we are poorer now than we should be because we
are members of the EU. It's economically worth leaving in the
long term so we can regain control of our trade policy.
"Regaining control" means relinquishing very many commerically
advantageous arrangements. The new "control" does not
translate directly to better deals.
In the short term, no, although it seems that the 40-ish deals
we have with the EU are to be grandfathered so Remain warnings
about them are looking as trustworthy as their other
predictions.
Plus there are other countries who have _already_ indicated they
are keen to build new trade deals with us. For sure, we can
build up new trade much faster outside the EU. It's worth doing.
Well worth it!
The UK is deluding itself if it thinks it can strike markedly
better trade agreements than the EU can. Last week I saw an
interesting interview on French tv with Lamy (who served two terms
as DG of the WTO and was head of cabinet for Delors when he was EU
President) and he's perplexed at how the UK thinks it's going to
make a trade success from baseline WTO rules.

If the immediate result of Brexit will be pain, misery and poverty
for an indeterminate period of time lasting many years then why
weren't people told about that in the campaign?
--
The wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car
James Harris
2018-01-15 21:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Trading with a fast growing country doesn't mean we
become fast growing! If that were the case China would
have lifted its trading partners in the last few decades
to dizzy heights of wealth.
Correct, it doesn't. I suggest to you that the large
established economies are beneficial for their volume and
that the growing economies are looking for such as skills
and services to help then grow. Both are good to partner
with.
So, what's new? What is Brexit going to change which makes
this situation into a massively more advantageous economic
proposition for us?
Can I give you a tip? Try asking me to justify something
I've said rather than something you've made up!
Please re-make your point about the fast growing developing
nations you listed and explain how they are going to help the
British economy after Brexit. Tell me why you think this is
a significantly large factor such that you mention it.
I didn't say they were. Here's what I said in that post. Note the tense.
--- start ---
As long-term averages they are pretty amazing! The point being
that, unfortunately, we in Britain have been denied full
access to many of such growth areas because the EU keeps such
rights to itself and for various reasons it has been rubbish
at negotiating them. It still has no trade deal with China,
India, Indonesia and so on.
Put another way, I would suggest we are poorer /now/ than we
should be, and that is /because/ of us being members of the EU
(and submitting to its rules) rather than just trading with
it. The EU might insist on making us poorer in the short term
as we leave. But as long as we have sensible governments we
should be able to become significantly richer in the long
term.
--- end of earlier text ---
That seems clear enough to me. I was saying that while you may
think that our EU membership has helped us with the single
market (it has) it has also denied us unfettered access to the
developing markets I listed because it has struck no trade
deals with them.
The problem I have with your point is not that there will be a
bit more uncontrolled trade to fast-growing developing
countries but that, as you claim, it is so valuable.
Well, my point was not directly about the future but about what
we have _already_ missed out on because of being bound by the
Common Commercial Policy of the EU's customs union. But I think
it's very clear that we would build up new global trade deals on
our own far faster than we would get them as EU members, and I
think we can be confident of that for three reasons: (1) The
UK's instincts are to be business-friendly, regulation-light,
low-tax, entrepreneurial, outward-looking, and open to trade;
NONE of which are EU priorities! (2) The EU has repeatedly
demonstrated that it is poor at opening up such trade. (3)
Individual countries outside the EU have opened up bigger global
trade deals than the entire EU has; and if they can do it so can
we.
Post by pamela
That is why I ask, "What is Brexit going to change which makes
this situation into a massively more advantageous economic
proposition for us?"
I didn't say massively more. AISI Brexit will initially cause us
to drop back in our trade, though perhaps not by much. But more
importantly it will move us from the slow lane to the fast lane.
And that would obviously be better for the long term.
The small reduction in growth now will be more than rewarded by
faster progress. Even the pessimistic BoE governor Mark Carney
recently described Brexit as a step back to leap forward. Maybe
even Remainers are coming round to the idea. The disruption of
the change is worth it.
Post by pamela
You then contend I am exaggerating your contention but I don't
think I am. If you don't like the word "massively" then change
it to "significantly". Whatever you call it, I am at a loss to
know how post-Brexit trading with -growing developing countries
si going to change out economic outlook.
Hopefully, I've answered that now: Brexit will cause an initial
dip (or more likely no dip but only lower growth) but allow us
thereafter to make faster progress. That's not unreasonable. To
use an analogy, a business might decide to restructure itself.
The change will cost it money and its performance will be
reduced. But the change is worth doing because the new structure
will allow it to grow more quickly.
Post by pamela
As an example of the non-existence of benefits of trading with
a fast-growing developing country, I gave you the example of
China's trading partners who have not become greatly more
wealthy on account of their trade with China.
Post by James Harris
Think about that: we've been in for over 40 years and in all
that time (40 years, forty!) the EU has not negotiated trade
liberalisation deals with either the major economies of the
world or some of the fastest growing.
That's rubbish. The EU is making new trade agreements with
such countries the whole time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreemen
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
ts
Yeah, work in progress. How can the big-money tickets still be
work in progress after 40 years?
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
That is surely an
incredible statistic and is a stain on the EU's supposed value
as a commercial entity.
Only in your head.
Post by James Harris
Hence I repeat, we are poorer now than we should be because we
are members of the EU. It's economically worth leaving in the
long term so we can regain control of our trade policy.
"Regaining control" means relinquishing very many commerically
advantageous arrangements. The new "control" does not
translate directly to better deals.
In the short term, no, although it seems that the 40-ish deals
we have with the EU are to be grandfathered so Remain warnings
about them are looking as trustworthy as their other
predictions.
Plus there are other countries who have _already_ indicated they
are keen to build new trade deals with us. For sure, we can
build up new trade much faster outside the EU. It's worth doing.
Well worth it!
The UK is deluding itself if it thinks it can strike markedly
better trade agreements than the EU can.
What evidence do you have to support that comment?
Post by pamela
Last week I saw an
interesting interview on French tv with Lamy (who served two terms
as DG of the WTO and was head of cabinet for Delors when he was EU
President) and he's perplexed at how the UK thinks it's going to
make a trade success from baseline WTO rules.
That's interesting but it's an opinion, not evidence.
Post by pamela
If the immediate result of Brexit will be pain, misery and poverty
for an indeterminate period of time lasting many years then why
weren't people told about that in the campaign?
Your side told us we'd have everything short of a plague of frogs. We
were told about the pain and misery. Not happened yet, though, has it.
--
James Harris
R. Mark Clayton
2018-01-06 11:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up so much
bandwidth that the government won't be able to do anything else. Yet
another reason not to honour the referendum, they think.
The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely shows that up.
He and his department are coming up with loads of policy changes to
improve life for the public.
In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round each government
department one at a time to redesign the way that department works.
--
James Harris
What are you talking about - he has made bold announcements, but subsidy will continue and nothing change until April 2024. I suspect the delay is because the government is too busy trying to sort out its internal differences on Brexit.
James Harris
2018-01-06 12:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up so much
bandwidth that the government won't be able to do anything else. Yet
another reason not to honour the referendum, they think.
The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely shows that up.
He and his department are coming up with loads of policy changes to
improve life for the public.
In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round each government
department one at a time to redesign the way that department works.
--
James Harris
What are you talking about - he has made bold announcements, but subsidy will continue and nothing change until April 2024. I suspect the delay is because the government is too busy trying to sort out its internal differences on Brexit.
AIUI the government had already committed to maintaining existing
subsidies to the end of this parliament in 2022. In fact, soon after the
referendum they committed to maintaining all such subsidies to the end
of the 2020 parliament but following the election they extended the
promise to the end of the new parliament. So they have been consistent
in giving forward guidance and guarantees to assure stability. Then from
2022 there is to be a transition period to migrate to the new system -
possibly by 2024 but the details are to be subject to consultation.

As for the proposals themselves, don't you agree that it's better to
reward farmers for good land management and efficiency and whatever else
is good for the country and its people rather than rewarding them for,
basically, how much land they own?

Some reports say that Michael Heseltine who is already a multi
millionaire receives from the EU nearly a million pounds a year for the
land he owns. Do you think that's a good system...?
--
James Harris
James Harris
2018-01-06 13:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
I've heard a lot of people claim that Brexit will take up so much
bandwidth that the government won't be able to do anything else. Yet
another reason not to honour the referendum, they think.
The work that Michael Gove is doing, however, completely shows that up.
He and his department are coming up with loads of policy changes to
improve life for the public.
In fact, Gove is a designer. He should be shifted round each government
department one at a time to redesign the way that department works.
--
James Harris
What are you talking about - he has made bold announcements, but subsidy will continue and nothing change until April 2024. I suspect the delay is because the government is too busy trying to sort out its internal differences on Brexit.
AIUI the government had already committed to maintaining existing
subsidies to the end of this parliament in 2022. In fact, soon after the
referendum they committed to maintaining all such subsidies to the end
of the 2020 parliament but following the election they extended the
promise to the end of the new parliament. So they have been consistent
in giving forward guidance and guarantees to assure stability. Then from
2022 there is to be a transition period to migrate to the new system -
possibly by 2024 but the details are to be subject to consultation.
As for the proposals themselves, don't you agree that it's better to
reward farmers for good land management and efficiency and whatever else
is good for the country and its people rather than rewarding them for,
basically, how much land they own?
Some reports say that Michael Heseltine who is already a multi
millionaire receives from the EU nearly a million pounds a year for the
land he owns. Do you think that's a good system...?
They seem to be fake. He apparently receives less than £100,000. I'm
glad I was clear that they were reports but I should have checked before
posting. And the point about subsidies for land _ownership_, i.e. for
the rich, is valid: "The current payment system - £3bn a year to UK
farmers - is based on the amount of land farmers own."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42559845


Surely, Gove's plans will be better - much better - than the current
system.
--
James Harris
Loading...