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
On 05/01/2018 17:45, James Harris wrote:
> 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
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 19:02:20 +0000, Brian Reay <***@m.com> wrote:
>
> On 05/01/2018 17:45, James Harris wrote:
> > 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
"Yellow" wrote in message
news:***@News.Individual.NET...

On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 19:02:20 +0000, Brian Reay <***@m.com> wrote:
>
> On 05/01/2018 17:45, James Harris wrote:
> > 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
On 17:45 5 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> 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
On 06/01/2018 09:36, pamela wrote:
> On 17:45 5 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> 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
On 09:53 6 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 06/01/2018 09:36, pamela wrote:
>> On 17:45 5 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> 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
On 06/01/2018 23:25, pamela wrote:

> 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
On 06/01/2018 23:25, pamela wrote:
> On 09:53 6 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 06/01/2018 09:36, pamela wrote:
>>> On 17:45 5 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
"James Harris" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:p2t3fp$d2v$***@dont-email.me...
> On 06/01/2018 23:25, pamela wrote:
>> On 09:53 6 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/01/2018 09:36, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 17:45 5 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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,

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
On 07/01/2018 14:27, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "James Harris" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:p2t3fp$d2v$***@dont-email.me...
>> On 06/01/2018 23:25, pamela wrote:
>>> On 09:53 6 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/01/2018 09:36, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 17:45 5 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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,
>
> 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
"James Harris" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:p2tgmv$5u8$***@dont-email.me...
> On 07/01/2018 14:27, tim... wrote:
>>
>>
>> "James Harris" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:p2t3fp$d2v$***@dont-email.me...
>>> On 06/01/2018 23:25, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 09:53 6 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/01/2018 09:36, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 17:45 5 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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,
>>
>> 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

> 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
On 20:11 7 Jan 2018, tim... wrote:

>
>
> "James Harris" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:p2tgmv$5u8$***@dont-email.me...
>> On 07/01/2018 14:27, tim... wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "James Harris" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:p2t3fp$d2v$***@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 06/01/2018 23:25, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 09:53 6 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/01/2018 09:36, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17:45 5 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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,
>>>
>>> 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
>
>> 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
On 14:27 7 Jan 2018, tim... wrote:

>
>
> "James Harris" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:p2t3fp$d2v$***@dont-email.me...
>> On 06/01/2018 23:25, pamela wrote:
>>> On 09:53 6 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/01/2018 09:36, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 17:45 5 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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,
>
> 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
On 07/01/2018 12:23, James Harris wrote:
> On 06/01/2018 23:25, pamela wrote:
>> On 09:53 6 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/01/2018 09:36, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 17:45 5 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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!

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
On 13:36 9 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 07/01/2018 12:23, James Harris wrote:
>> On 06/01/2018 23:25, pamela wrote:
>>> On 09:53 6 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/01/2018 09:36, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 17:45 5 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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!
>
> 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
On 11/01/2018 15:45, pamela wrote:
> On 13:36 9 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 07/01/2018 12:23, James Harris wrote:
>>> On 06/01/2018 23:25, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 09:53 6 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/01/2018 09:36, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 17:45 5 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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!
>>
>> 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. :-(

> 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.

>
> 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.

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
On 17:17 11 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 11/01/2018 15:45, pamela wrote:
>> On 13:36 9 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/01/2018 12:23, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ........
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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!
>>>
>>> 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. :-(
>
>> 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."

>> 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.
>
> 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
On 11/01/2018 20:19, pamela wrote:
> On 17:17 11 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 11/01/2018 15:45, pamela wrote:
>>> On 13:36 9 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/01/2018 12:23, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ........
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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!
>>>>
>>>> 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. :-(
>>
>>> Perhaps you derive your ideas from first prinicples

(BTW, that may be true, although I would call it more about simplicity
and logic.)

>>>
>>> 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."

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
On 21:52 11 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 11/01/2018 20:19, pamela wrote:
>> On 17:17 11 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/01/2018 15:45, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 13:36 9 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/01/2018 12:23, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ........
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>
>>>>> 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. :-(
>>>
>>>> Perhaps you derive your ideas from first prinicples
>
> (BTW, that may be true, although I would call it more about
> simplicity and logic.)
>
> >>>
>>>> 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."
>
> 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
On 11/01/2018 22:24, pamela wrote:
> On 21:52 11 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 11/01/2018 20:19, pamela wrote:
>>> On 17:17 11 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/01/2018 15:45, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 13:36 9 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/01/2018 12:23, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ........
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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. :-(
>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you derive your ideas from first prinicples
>>
>> (BTW, that may be true, although I would call it more about
>> simplicity and logic.)
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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."
>>
>> 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!

>
> 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
On 22:35 11 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 11/01/2018 22:24, pamela wrote:
>> On 21:52 11 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/01/2018 20:19, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 17:17 11 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/01/2018 15:45, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 13:36 9 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 07/01/2018 12:23, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ........
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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/9499095673532088
>>>>>>>> 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. :-(
>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps you derive your ideas from first prinicples
>>>
>>> (BTW, that may be true, although I would call it more about
>>> simplicity and logic.)
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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."
>>>
>>> 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!
>
>>
>> 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
On 11/01/2018 23:07, pamela wrote:
> On 22:35 11 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>> On 11/01/2018 22:24, pamela wrote:

...

>>> 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!

>
> 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
On 17:16 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 11/01/2018 23:07, pamela wrote:
>> On 22:35 11 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>> On 11/01/2018 22:24, pamela wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>> 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.

>> 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
On 12/01/2018 21:51, pamela wrote:
> On 17:16 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 11/01/2018 23:07, pamela wrote:
>>> On 22:35 11 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>> On 11/01/2018 22:24, pamela wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>> 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
On 23:50 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 12/01/2018 21:51, pamela wrote:
>> On 17:16 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/01/2018 23:07, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 22:35 11 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>> On 11/01/2018 22:24, pamela wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>> 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.

> 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

> That is surely an
> incredible statistic and is a stain on the EU's supposed value
> as a commercial entity.

Only in your head.

> 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
On 13/01/2018 11:42, pamela wrote:
> On 23:50 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/2018 21:51, pamela wrote:
>>> On 17:16 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/01/2018 23:07, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 22:35 11 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/01/2018 22:24, pamela wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

>
> 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.
>
>> 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?

>
>> That is surely an
>> incredible statistic and is a stain on the EU's supposed value
>> as a commercial entity.
>
> Only in your head.
>
>> 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
On 16:57 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:

> On 13/01/2018 11:42, pamela wrote:
>> On 23:50 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/01/2018 21:51, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 17:16 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/01/2018 23:07, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 22:35 11 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/01/2018 22:24, pamela wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>> 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
>> ts
>
> Yeah, work in progress. How can the big-money tickets still be
> work in progress after 40 years?
>
>>
>>> That is surely an
>>> incredible statistic and is a stain on the EU's supposed value
>>> as a commercial entity.
>>
>> Only in your head.
>>
>>> 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
On 14/01/2018 21:29, pamela wrote:
> On 16:57 14 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>
>> On 13/01/2018 11:42, pamela wrote:
>>> On 23:50 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/01/2018 21:51, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 17:16 12 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/01/2018 23:07, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22:35 11 Jan 2018, James Harris wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/01/2018 22:24, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> 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
>>> ts
>>
>> Yeah, work in progress. How can the big-money tickets still be
>> work in progress after 40 years?
>>
>>>
>>>> That is surely an
>>>> incredible statistic and is a stain on the EU's supposed value
>>>> as a commercial entity.
>>>
>>> Only in your head.
>>>
>>>> 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?


> 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.

>
> 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
On Friday, 5 January 2018 17:45:54 UTC, James Harris wrote:
> 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
On 06/01/2018 11:55, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Friday, 5 January 2018 17:45:54 UTC, James Harris wrote:
>> 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
On 06/01/2018 12:50, James Harris wrote:
> On 06/01/2018 11:55, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> On Friday, 5 January 2018 17:45:54 UTC, James Harris wrote:
>>> 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...


Database (slave) 0.002987 s
44.2031 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
SELECT `lang` FROM `newsgroup` WHERE `newsgroup_url` = 'uk.legal' (4)
0.000109 s
0.000236 s
0.000161 s
0.000643 s
2.2344 kB
2.3672 kB
2.2676 kB
9.0703 kB
SELECT `code`, `name` FROM `lang` WHERE `code` = 'en' (3)
0.000087 s
0.000156 s
0.000110 s
0.000331 s
2.4141 kB
2.4141 kB
2.4141 kB
7.2422 kB
SELECT * FROM `lang` WHERE `code` = 'en' (1)
0.000149 s
0.000149 s
0.000149 s
0.000149 s
12.5313 kB
12.5313 kB
12.5313 kB
12.5313 kB
SELECT * FROM `thread` WHERE `hash` = 'J4eFnset' (1)
0.000632 s
0.000632 s
0.000632 s
0.000632 s
4.2500 kB
4.2500 kB
4.2500 kB
4.2500 kB
SELECT * FROM `newsgroup` WHERE `newsgroup_id` = '28820' (1)
0.000146 s
0.000146 s
0.000146 s
0.000146 s
5.8047 kB
5.8047 kB
5.8047 kB
5.8047 kB
SELECT * FROM `temp_simthread` WHERE `hash` = 'J4eFnset' (1)
0.000437 s
0.000437 s
0.000437 s
0.000437 s
2.6563 kB
2.6563 kB
2.6563 kB
2.6563 kB
SELECT text_res, img_res, manual FROM porndetect WHERE hash = 'J4eFnset' AND page = 1 (1)
0.000649 s
0.000649 s
0.000649 s
0.000649 s
2.6484 kB
2.6484 kB
2.6484 kB
2.6484 kB
Kohana 0.003841 s
112.6875 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
find_file (186)
0.000001 s
0.000104 s
0.000021 s
0.003841 s
0.5078 kB
2.1563 kB
0.6058 kB
112.6875 kB
Requests 0.053990 s
1,323.3359 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
"J4eFnset/gove-proving-the-government-is-not-too-busy-with-brexit" (1)
0.054847 s
0.054847 s
0.054847 s
0.054847 s
1,351.3594 kB
1,351.3594 kB
1,351.3594 kB
1,351.3594 kB
Thread controller 0.000564 s
28.3906 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
Init (1)
0.000564 s
0.000564 s
0.000564 s
0.000564 s
28.3906 kB
28.3906 kB
28.3906 kB
28.3906 kB
Thread parsing 0.032744 s
787.8828 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
Other (3)
0.000009 s
0.016219 s
0.006299 s
0.018896 s
0.3672 kB
367.0469 kB
170.6771 kB
512.0313 kB
PHP Post Parsing (1)
0.008555 s
0.008555 s
0.008555 s
0.008555 s
236.7188 kB
236.7188 kB
236.7188 kB
236.7188 kB
C++ Post Parsing (1)
0.004584 s
0.004584 s
0.004584 s
0.004584 s
2.3672 kB
2.3672 kB
2.3672 kB
2.3672 kB
Three (1)
0.000709 s
0.000709 s
0.000709 s
0.000709 s
36.7656 kB
36.7656 kB
36.7656 kB
36.7656 kB
Load & uncompress 0.002079 s
138.7578 kB
Benchmark Min Max Average Total
load_thread (1)
0.002079 s
0.002079 s
0.002079 s
0.002079 s
138.7578 kB
138.7578 kB
138.7578 kB
138.7578 kB
Application Execution (969) 0.018133 s 1.036286 s 0.039222 s 0.061646 s
1,103.8672 kB 18,371.6406 kB 1,371.3012 kB 1,956.9609 kB