Economy watch

Hahahahahaha

David Davis and Liam Fox are obviously feeling the pressure to announce something regarding the trade deal negotiations so they've come up with one of the easiest and most obvious for starters:
Trade deal negotiations with Australia underway (article here) and they estimate it will be two and a half years before UK is in a position to sign anything - whereas the Australian deal with the EU is "at a more advanced stage".
Amusingly, the UK apparently doesn't have any experienced trade negotiators so the cheeky bastard Australian Foreign Minister has offered to lend us Australian negotiators - which is hardly confidence-inspiring.

If the same principle of not being able to sign anything until we actually leave the EU in a few years time applies to all trade deals it's starting to look as if the Leave campaign is going to have a long wait.

In the meanwhile, I assume we'll be able to benefit from the Aussie trade deal with the EU?

Do you think we will leave the EU?

I have a feeling that the economy will perform pretty well over the next couple of years, so come the time to actually make our split from the EU official I bet there will be a lot of pressure to stay in.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Do you think we will leave the EU?

I have a feeling that the economy will perform pretty well over the next couple of years, so come the time to actually make our split from the EU official I bet there will be a lot of pressure to stay in.

We will leave the EU - the Government would lose too much face if it did anything else.

However I'd be surprised if we left the single market, because it's holding our economy together and nobody voted to leave it.
The importance of the Common Market to the UK is global, because countries in other continents e.g. China, USA etc want to have one deal with Europe and many have created European HQs in the UK to access that European market, creating lots of jobs in the UK. Of course staying in the single market means we will have to accept free movement of people.

The leave campaign suggested we might enter into an EFTA-type free trade agreement with multiple countries which was exactly what the original 1957 EEC Treaty was designed to do - and still does - i.e. remove all tariffs and charges to sell goods into a member country.

The bit that we voted against i.e. the EU is the bit that allows signees to the trade agreement to agree one rule rather than 28 sets of rules via the European Commission. So for example, if we want to export Melton Mowbray pork pies to Italy, and the Italians have a rule that all pork pies have to be square, the EU would act as an arbitrator and impose a solution. We voted to not have to abide by such EU decisions.

So we voted out of the EU (i.e. to set our own rules for trade where there is a conflict of interest) but we didn't vote to leave the single (Common) Market so if we don't leave the single market we'll presumably have to negotiate such issues with the EU. 

However, we'll apparently have to borrow some Aussies to do the actual negotiation for us.

There will always be pressure to stay in, but we will most likely end up with a compromise deal and it's going to be a lot of fun as the Government continues to backpedal on the unrealistic promises and downright lies that got us into this mess in the first place.

wanderlust wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:Do you think we will leave the EU?

I have a feeling that the economy will perform pretty well over the next couple of years, so come the time to actually make our split from the EU official I bet there will be a lot of pressure to stay in.

We will leave the EU - the Government would lose too much face if it did anything else.

However I'd be surprised if we left the single market, because it's holding our economy together and nobody voted to leave it.
The importance of the Common Market to the UK is global, because countries in other continents e.g. China, USA etc want to have one deal with Europe and many have created European HQs in the UK to access that European market, creating lots of jobs in the UK. Of course staying in the single market means we will have to accept free movement of people.

The leave campaign suggested we might enter into an EFTA-type free trade agreement with multiple countries which was exactly what the original 1957 EEC Treaty was designed to do - and still does - i.e. remove all tariffs and charges to sell goods into a member country.

The bit that we voted against i.e. the EU is the bit that allows signees to the trade agreement to agree one rule rather than 28 sets of rules via the European Commission. So for example, if we want to export Melton Mowbray pork pies to Italy, and the Italians have a rule that all pork pies have to be square, the EU would act as an arbitrator and impose a solution. We voted to not have to abide by such EU decisions.

So we voted out of the EU (i.e. to set our own rules for trade where there is a conflict of interest) but we didn't vote to leave the single (Common) Market so if we don't leave the single market we'll presumably have to negotiate such issues with the EU. 

However, we'll apparently have to borrow some Aussies to do the actual negotiation for us.

There will always be pressure to stay in, but we will most likely end up with a compromise deal and it's going to be a lot of fun as the Government continues to backpedal on the unrealistic promises and downright lies that got us into this mess in the first place.

A compromise solution could be where there is significant change within the EU where it could offer a face saving turnaround based on the fact that the changes address the issues which caused Brexit in the first place.
All the signs are that Brexit has caused other countries to start to question the EU in it's current form and with several of the major members facing elections where right wing anti EU parties are seemingly in strong positions it isn't such a far fetched notion.

whatsgoingon wrote:A compromise solution could be where there is significant change within the EU where it could offer a face saving turnaround based on the fact that the changes address the issues which caused Brexit in the first place.
All the signs are that Brexit has caused other countries to start to question the EU in it's current form and with several of the major members facing elections where right wing anti EU parties are seemingly in strong positions it isn't such a far fetched notion.

The Anti-EU British media were all over Anti-EU European feeling immediately after the referendum when nationalism spiked, but the fact is that Le Pen peaked at 25% of the vote in opinion polls and has slipped back since, so I don't think the EU is in any immediate danger.
The problems that created Brexit were a result of years of bad press wherein none of the papers went to any lengths to write about the benefits of membership - after all "doing a good job" is not newsworthy in the sensationalist world we live in these days - whereas "over-regulation" is always good for a few column inches, especially where they don't tell the whole story - or even fabricate a story as in the straight bananas myth. The media created Brexit by writing stories that would sell papers, even if they were half-truths or outright fibs and they slung enough mud for plenty to stick.
As the old journalists maxim goes, you can't let the facts stand in the way of a good story.

okocha wrote:Conservative backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg is pushing Mark Carney on whether what he calls the Bank's "dire warnings" about the impact of Brexit were really necessary.
He also says that the residential property market and the stock market have "held up well".

Growth in the FTSE 500 which is more representative than the narrower sample of the FTSE 100 has risen steadily for the past five years from 1142 in 2012 to today's price of around 2190 so it's true Brexit hasn't had a massive negative impact on the market yet. Any impact, positive or negative will come when we get to the business end of the trade deal negotiations and that could be a couple of years off. The other big factor will be whether or not we stay in the Common Market.
The residential property market prices continue to rise but at a much slower rate than pre-referendum and actually fell in August from the July figure so the trend appears to be downward i.e. a buyer's market - however sales have fallen off in the last month. If the houses are there and the price is right, there must be some other factor at play and I suspect that may be buyer reticence to invest.

okocha wrote:Conservative backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg is pushing Mark Carney on whether what he calls the Bank's "dire warnings" about the impact of Brexit were really necessary.
He also says that the residential property market and the stock market have "held up well".

Having just read the report, it seems that Have I Got News For You's comedy panellist was suggesting that Carney acted too early in reducing the interest rate and giving financial incentives to business. 
1) If anything is too early, it's the timing of that question as we won't know the impact of Brexit for at least a couple of years yet
2) If he thinks the economy is OK, how can he suggest that Carney acted too early.? Surely if we are doing OK Carney did absolutely the right thing as it's obviously working. Or does Moggy have a crystal ball and is able to tell us what would have happened in his alternative universe?

We'll see what the Select Committee come up with tomorrow.

okocha wrote:Treasury Select committee chair Andrew Tyrie begins with two charges aimed at Bank governor Mark Carney, firstly that he over-egged the potential economic dangers of a Brexit vote in the referendum of 23 June, and secondly that he "encouraged an over-reaction" after the UK voted to leave the EU.

To be fair to Mark Carney perhaps his dream was to retire to some sunny European country and buy a boat.

All well and good, but Boris and Rat-Faced Gove are still serving members of the government, so will they be hauled up in front of a Select Committee too for painting that slogan about giving the NHS an extra £350 million a week on the side of a bus?

If Carney's being questioned about potentially misrepresenting things during the run in to the vote, surely those two should be as well?

Fair's fair, after all.

(PS: Just read Whittam's comment as I was about to post mine. Fuck you, sloppy knickers, the move's still on. Going to view a place in Spain in 4 weeks.)

Bread2.0 wrote:
(PS: Just read Whittam's comment as I was about to post mine. Fuck you, sloppy knickers, the move's still on. Going to view a place in Spain in 4 weeks.)

Ha ha, I'm glad. You shouldn't let anything get in the way of your dream.

I actually owe you a debt of gratitude for your comments about boat-ownership.

You swung it and gave me the incentive to start properly researching buying a house over there.

Sincere thanks.

There will always be space on the settee for you in Spain.

Bread2.0 wrote:I actually owe you a debt of gratitude for your comments about boat-ownership.

You swung it and gave me the incentive to start properly researching buying a house over there.

Sincere thanks.

There will always be space on the settee for you in Spain.

No problem.

Although won't Mrs B2.0 be annoyed when she finds you snuggled up on the settee with me?

I think confused would be a more appropriate adjective to use than annoyed.

Along the lines of: "Why are you spooning Danny La Rue? Isn't he dead?"

Bread2.0 wrote:I think confused would be a more appropriate adjective to use than annoyed.

Along the lines of: "Why are you spooning Danny La Rue? Isn't he dead?"

No need for that type of bullery just because your pensions fucked 

I'm disappointed, I wanted to sink his boat 

I'll probably still get a boat one day, Scott and you're welcome to come out to Spain and throw things at me as I glide past if you like.