UKC

Some flesh on the bones finally. And from the horse's mouth no less.

Written a couple of days before his appointment, this may be more of a job application than a formal plan, but it is informative for those who can approach with an open mind. And yes he will be asking for single market access with migration controls.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/07/david-davis-trade-deals-ta...

In reply to BnB:

It's interesting that he talks about the EU taking a "dog in the manger" attitude to our need to have all the benefits of membership with reduced costs and responsibilities. That just proves how unreasonable the EU is I suppose. But when they realise what a big hitter the UK is they'll be forced to come grovelling to us. That'll show our partners who's boss.

A woman from the Black Country was on the news: "Just come back in a year! Then you'll see!" "See what?" "Everything's gunner be better!" "How better?" "Just better. Up!"

I fear she will be disappointed. But I know who she will blame.

In reply to Pete Pozman:
I don't imagine life will change in either direction nearly as much as anyone anticipates. Would that be a bad thing after all the fretting?

In reply to BnB:



That's been one of my main themes about the referendum. People just trust that life will go on as normal. But who are they trusting? What are they trusting?
I suggest that life has been good (or good enough) for so long in this country that they believe nothing makes a difference (that's why loads can't be bothered to vote, or register a"protest" vote when they do).

What I fear is that we, ignoring all the dangerous currents that beset the continent at this time, have started a chain reaction that will have cataclysmic consequences. And, (it makes me weep), just to sort out internal dissent in conservative party branches.

In reply to BnB:

Perhaps if you don't include what happens in Scotland.

In reply to Pete Pozman:



I too regret the holding of the referendum on several levels. But its outcome has made me take account of feelings amongst the populace from which I have been too well insulated, and which have been ignored too long by those in power.

Subsequent analysis of our economic relationship with Europe has made me question the constrictions that EU membership places on the UK's trading relationship with the ROW. And I do so from the standpoint of a business owner experienced in international trade. I care not for freedom from the "red tape" of EU compliance, most of which seems very sensible. It's the ability to trade tariff- and obstacle-free with ROW, prohibited by EU membership, that could massively outweigh any extra cost of continued access to the single market. And it will cost more but that may turn out to be a small price to pay for unfettered trading opportunities elsewhere.

I'm more concerned that we will attempt to cut migration from Europe too hard and deny my children access to life and employment opportunities in some very attractive locations on the UK doorstep. My son is due to complete his Masters in Chemistry with a research appointment at a European University. What employment difficulties might he experience abroad in years to come? Even allowing for the refined nature of his skills and qualifications, the road hardly looks smoother.

In reply to snowmore:


This is certainly a big unknown. The SNP can manoeuvre in the background but they can't make their move publicly until the negotiations reach such a stage that the public understand what's in store.

In reply to BnB:


I find this kind of argument intriguing, and we see a lot of it at the moment: If we're not in the EU we'll be able to do 'x' and we'll be better off overall as a result. Typically there's hardly been any mention of 'x' until recently and it hasn't been flagged as something the EU has been getting wrong in terms of policy beneficial to its members. Surely if it was genuinely the case that countries would benefit more from 'x' then it wouldn't be hard to gather support from other EU heads to petition for the change. The exception, of course, would be where there is good reason to think the UK is uniquely in a position to benefit from 'x', but rarely have I seen a case for significant change that wouldn't have broadly similar effects on most or all of the major EU countries.

In reply to BnB:
Your comments about trade etc appear naive.

Read this:
http://politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-th...

Ps I thought Davies' original piece is already out of date as he has since stated we won't be in the EEA.

In reply to Stig:





On the contrary, the article you quote is long on speculative angst and short on realpolitik.

The future looks a lot more like Davis' article than yours. We will enjoy a multiplication of trading relationships and we will continue to trade tariff-free with Europe. It's the migration picture that is muddier.

As for naive, if you want to play international business credentials top trumps then let's take the conversation offline. However, it's precisely because I'm an experienced entrepreneur that I'm taking a different look now that we find ourselves in a reality I didn't vote for.

There are enough threads telling us how bad everyone feels. That isn't the purpose of this one.

In reply to john arran:

Actually I recall this point being made time and again in the campaigning. It's just that I, along with most Remainers, ignored the claims, so wedded was I to the status quo. Now I'm making a fresh appraisal.

In reply to BnB:
Not sure it's the horse's mouth this gas is coming from.

It seems really naive and completely unquantified. The UK has spent at least 30 years screwing up its industry and focusing on financial services, what industry we have is configured to work within the EU and with the protection of EU tariffs.

I don't believe for a second he can get all these trade deals anything like as fast as he thinks starting with nothing, not even an established department. If he does get deals quickly it will be because he's just taking the packaged standard offer from the other side. Most countries aren't going to worry about manufactured goods or commodities when trading with the UK, they will be quite happy to do a no tarriff deal on physical goods, but they are going to want to protect their local financial industry from UK banks.

The best outcome is that all this will grind to a halt and in six months he'll be fired and we'll either not leave the EU or join the EEA. The worst outcome is that he'll do a whole bunch of free-trade deals without considering the actual capabilities and configuration of UK industry and discover too late that it can no longer compete in the local market against cheap imports and has no ability to expand quickly into the new overseas markets. Maybe he doesn't care about wiping out UK industry as long as UK financial services can get sold in these other countries.

In reply to BnB:




While you've got the crystal ball out can you tell me who's going to win the 14:10 at Newmarket?

Joking aside, we don't know anything of substance yet. We've got a new government and some breathing space, but to paraphrase Churchill, we aren't even at the middle of the beginning.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


Yes life has been good but things are on the decline and something needs doing about it before its too late.

Over the years we have seen the decline in industry and the associated job losses.
We have seen all the public services stretched close to breaking point, hospitals, doctors, police etc.
We have seen the gap between the have and have-nots get bigger.
School classes expanding and people having to travel further to school because their kids can't get in the local catchment.
We have seen major projects awarded to manufacturers in the EU rather than to UK companies.

This has been going on through both red and blue governments and unless we try something new and radical we are probably heading for a train wreck.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



And the aim is to protect and retain our trade with the EU. However, we do approximately half (IIRC Davis claims 60% in the article) of our business outside the EU already. How would we be taken by surprise? Sure, there's work to do bulding new business relationships, but those are marketing, not structural issues.


I get the impression that most countries are already under the thumb of the international banking community, headquartered in London and New York


I don't think anyone imagines the UK should compete with China for the mass-manufacture of basic goods. How about software, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, professional servces, insurance, precision engineering? We are still a world leader in all of those. And how will it wipe out UK industry to increase its potential customer base?

In reply to BnB:


The trouble with selling high-tech goods to China is protecting your intellectual property. If you haven't been filing patents in China over the last ten years you won't have any protection for your current products, even if you have filed patents the chances of getting a Chinese court to side with you over a local company are slim. If you sell software you'll likely find the Chinese are already using pirate copies for free and you'll have no chance of getting the full price you charge in the UK. If you want to sell into China you'll probably be forced to do a joint venture with a local company and have your arm twisted on manufacturing whatever it is you make in china.

China still has exchange controls, I'm not sure its going to fully open its financial services market just because David Davis asks it to. Maybe they'd be interested in tax evasion and money laundering services to get round Chinese exchange controls but I doubt China is going to write that into a trade agreement. As for professional services why would a Chinese company buy them from high-cost, non Chinese speakers in an inconvenient time zone.

As a small business I've sold software into China and tariffs are no problem from within the EU. I don't think there are any Chinese tariffs and if there are nobody cares or knows how to enforce them on digital goods supplied over the internet. You just give them a link to download the software and if you are lucky they send money. The issues are not getting ripped off, the language barrier if you need to do tech support and the need for trustworthy local contacts to make an introduction. Leaving the EU isn't suddenly going to grow the Chinese market for software businesses. It's going to stay exactly the same as before.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I cited China as a manufacturing competitor, rather than as an export destination.

Surely the point of a trade agreement however would be to eliminate some of the obstacles you've just identified? In return for privileged access to UK customers of course.

In reply to BnB:
From conversations I've had, for people outside of China, and I dare say inside China too, doing business there can be rather opaque due to the corruption there. Even if there was a trade agreement formally put in place, there's nothing to say that the people on the ground will adhere to it. Whether it's because nobody cares enough to stop it from happening, or they're not in a position to, infringement of copy-write is rife there, and ministers making some kind of agreement is a long way from changing what people do and how strongly any laws are enforced.

As a an example of the corruption, Orange Mountain Bikes from the UK have had to stop sourcing their aluminium from there because they can't know whether a certain grade of aluminium is what it's certificate says it, or if somebody has just been given a backhander to issue the certification for it. Essentially there' s a lack of transparency and straight forwardness there. Hopefully that will change within time.

In reply to BnB:

I have mentioned before that one of the issues with uk exporters is that the demand for our non financial services is relatively inelastic.

That is because for alot of exporters( not all) a drop on the price you can sell it will not lead to dramatic increase in the demand for your goods.since 2008. It's one of the things that has been perplexing UKTI and govt over the past few years.

On trade deals we are still faced with the fact that markets like Brazil, India etc are still protectionist. There is probably going to be little change there even when we go banging on their doors.

In reply to neilh:

This is an important consideration but I'm not sure I would agree with you in respect of industries like IT, electronics, telecoms, professional services biochem and pharma where demand is growing worldwide at impressive rates.

Protectionism is a problem but India is dropping the barriers, eg trading US education for access, as well as finally succumbing to the allure of trade deals.

In reply to BnB:

Tell me if I'm wrong but our new brexit minister is very wrong which is worrying. In that article he says we can negotiate, in 6-12 months trade deals with ROW before we end up leaving the EU. but we can't. Until the moment we leave 2yrs after article 50 we are still legally members oftye EUand so itis illegal for us to negotiate independent trade deals with anyone??

In reply to phja:

Negotiations have several levels. I understand we can only sign new treaties on exit. But we can agree them tomorrow.

In reply to BnB:

There are two big and important "ifs" in David Davis case for optimism. The first is that we'll get access to the single market and gain full control of our borders simply by digging our heals in. Based on the examples of Norway and Switzerland, that seems hard to believe.

The second is that we'll be able to line up all these trade negotiations ready for signing the moment we exit the EU. The first problem we have is that we don't have nearly enough people experienced in trade negotiations. According to a government review the Civil Service has 20 people with the relevant experience. (the EU has 600). The department for Business, Innovation and Skills recently advertised for 300 trade negotiators. Bringing that many people on board and getting them up to speed and operational will take time.

The second problem is that we dont have a detailed understanding of what Britain wants from its trade agreements. What tariffs to set on which product lines, what to do in the case of disputes, protection against regulatory changes etc etc etc. The needs detailed engagement with UK businesses and will take time.

The third problem is that all this will be happening at the same time as we are trying to negotiate our exit from the EU, potentially our entry into the EEA (or if not then our own trade agreement with the EU), as well as re-writing the up to 12,000-odd laws and regulations which are dependent on EU law.

So, over the long term it would certainly be possible to build the kind of non-EU relations which Davis outlines but it will take a lot longer than he thinks and i think we are going to have to give some ground on either migration controls or access to the single market.

In reply to BnB:

Like you I have seen the ukti's efforts on refocusing expertise to help mid/large companieswith exporting. Focusing resources on those who who have the capability to do these things is just sensible. But it has always struck me these Companies already export where they can or wish to do so. A massive drop in the value of sterling helps. Ultimately it's going to require uk govt to come up with a medium/ long term strategy to grow those sectors you mention. We have not been good at doing this for so many years it's ridiculous. Never mind negotiating brexit I have little faith that anybody has the vision in either party to do this on top. They all talk a lot, but doing it is another matter . maybe that's a good thing, better leave us to get on and do it.

In reply to BnB:


Like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36818055

In reply to neilh:

I agree that successive UK governments have been poor at encouraging the development of industries other than financial services lately. But that isn't what trade deals are about, to my mind. Aren't they primarily designed to facilitate the expansion of your export strengths while easing the passage of lower priced imports?

As you say, companies have been trading beyond the EU for centuries. However, protectionism and import taxes form significant barriers. My business exports professional services worldwide, including SE Asia. But withholding taxes depress our income in Indonesia by 10-20% while Malaysian protectionism means we can only trade through a state-approved local partner who likewise take a slice out of our pie. As for Australia, we simply can't get started which is why this morning's overtures from Oz are welcome.

Furthermore, when supplying professional services, the ease of cross border skills transfer is vitally important. Acquiring expertise across Europe is incredibly easy when you have free movement of labour. To be able to provide or acquire visa free expertise would revolutionise the competitiveness of companies on either side of a trade deal.

Of course this last point highlights the dangers of a reactionary halting of migration. It strikes me that this is by far the biggest challenge: how to retain the economic benefits of migration while satisfying a powerful call for a slowdown. Interestingly, recent studies have suggested that EU migration may already have peaked and that, by the time (2018/2019?) that our exit can be ratified, it may be possible to demonstrate a significant reduction in EU-sourced immigration arising out of the uncertain prospects for would-be EU migrants to UK. I fully accept that the opposite might occur and we might be overwhelmed by newcomers seeking to get in before the gates are closed. These patterns are important because they will steer the agenda for the trickiest part of the negotiation.

Of course all this focus on trade ignores the other important functions of the EU, from subsidising agriculture to funding academic research to the regulation of employment law. I'm more confident that we will succeed in encouraging business and the export economy than I am about scientific research. This is an area in which the UK has excelled for hundred of years and I fear for our universities if they become isolated, let alone under-resourced.

In reply to BnB:



What does Aus have that the UK wants/needs, and vice versa, though

In reply to Big Ger:

Good question. Australia's mining boom has faltered as China and its satellites have become less dependent on Australian minerals so I would imagine those form part of the picture. What would we sell them? Pretty much anything we already sell worldwide I guess, but hopefully with fewer obstacles. I'm sceptical because the barriers we have met in trading with Australian companies have been more to do with protectionist attitudes than any regulatory difficulties. But a trading agreement would be a start.

In reply to BnB:

Never sold in Indonesia, that must be interesting .Australia is relatively easy anyway, they find it easy to trade with the U.K and so do we with them .But it's not a big market anyway and I am reasonably comfortable that it is mature to most uk companies.

I am not concerned about immigration being maintained. The engineering skills I need are developed locally. I do understand where you are coming from.

I laugh to myself when I hear the exiters say well there is the rest of the world. If you are new to exporting, easily the best place to start and learn is Europe ( usually Eire than somewhere like Holland or Belgium) and not the USA , China or India. These are more difficult.

In reply to neilh:



Yes. We find it incredibly easy to do business in Europe relative to the rest of the world. Which begs two questions: What sensible exit plan would not retain access to the single market? And how much better could our trading opportunities be if we enjoyed the same access around the world? Food for thought wouldn't you say?

In reply to BnB:


Agreed - but it doesn't at the moment seem to be a foregone conclusion that we will have full access (given the price for that appears to be free movement of people).


Yes - but a series of different free trade agreements that are all bespoke does not equal a worldwide single market.

In reply to BnB:

From Marina Hyde,

"It has emerged that as recently as May, David Davis had believed it would be possible for Britain to negotiate trade deals directly with each EU member state, as opposed to the reality, which is that the member states are only permitted to negotiate as a bloc."

We're in safe hands! :/

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Something needs to give, be it our apparent desire for border control, certain aspects of free access or the EU's collective bottle, I agree. But we are too big an export market for the EU's big players for a deal of some sort not to be in everyone's interests. Wouldn't you agree?


Agreed. Clearly there's potential for the mass duplication of trade negotiations over the next 10 years. But does that actually matter to exporters? If I want to sell to Indonesia and Malaysia it's the existence of a deal, not its uniformity, which is paramount. I accept that regulatory standards is one area in which this could be problematic, for manufacturers certainly, but that is less of an issue in my field of professional services. However, does the standalone nature of each deal not make them easier to refine in the future, not requiring the assent of 27 participants for example?

In reply to Shani:
Shock, horror:

Left wing journalist makes unattributed claim about right wing politician

One of the reasons for this thread is that I've recognised just how blinkered I've been about the prospect of Brexit. And I'm an international businessman of thirty years experience for goodness sakes. If Davis himself erred in his assumptions then he is no more guilty than me.

I just think we should be looking at opportunities as well as threats. It's instinctive for me to do so as an entrepreneur and I'm finding the process very instructive.

If anyone's instinctive response is to say "that's all very well for you but what about investment in the UK or passporting of financial instruments or even where will I get my cheap foreign workers from now?" there are threads aplenty for that wringing of hands. I opened this thread to explore some visions of the future.

In reply to BnB:

I see that arm aid about to be acquired by a Japanese company. One of the downsides of a lower £.... it's cheaper to buy good uk companies ....

It s free trade agreements that help me. In China, Brazil and India my equipment has a tariff of 20% so as to protect local suppliers. In India there is an exception if the purchaser has exporting the product made on the machine.then there is local State taxes which may also apply, paricularly in Brazil. I have a Japanese customer who gets round this by importing into Japan first and then moving the equipment to China as there is a fta between China and Japan.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Well yes it's pretty easy to get "free trade deals", more difficult to get a good one. The worse thing is that there even isn't any political pressure to get good trade deals, all the government need is some trade deals to show they've done their jobs, the voters are never going to look into all the details of these deals, where usually the evil lies.

They are probably going to rush it and just accept standard packages instead of taking their time, there is no political gain in negotiating these properly unfortunately.

In reply to BnB:


The best we can realistically hope for re trade deals with the rest of the world is something similar to what the EU would have been able to agree but perhaps (and this is far from clear, we're not geared up for this negotiation and deals made in haste are rarely wise ones) a little sooner than might have been the case had there been more varied interests to consider.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

A good map here, showing what deals are in place/underway etc.

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/june/tradoc_149622.png

Whatever way you look at it. Given the size of the EU and the fact they have over 600 in their team of negotiators, it looks like a lot of work to get new ones agreed in the UK - and in a short timeframe.

In reply to BnB:

old boris says that the uk is 'not going to abandon its leadership role in european affairs ,cooperation, blah blah'
is he on acid ??

In reply to Bellie:

Actually it is an appalling map. For exampe it does not clearly show that there is an existing FTA with Mexico, all it shows is that it is being modernised- whatever that means.You would not think from that map that there is already zero tariff in Mexico.

In reply to neilh:

No to worry: the brave new Brexiteers will have this entire map painted in empire-pink within two years - starting with the obvious low-hanging fruit of Venezuela, Iraq, Libya, Greenland and Outer Mongolia, with whom, inexplicably, the 600 trade negotiaters have failed to obtain trade deals.

In reply to phja:


Yes, although there seems to be a misconception that the two years is a minimum delay. I think Art 50 says that withdrawal will become automatic 2 years after formal notification of our intention to leave if negotiations haven't been concluded by then (unless there is unanimous agreement to extent the period).

In reply to phja:

Is it illegal to have discussions or sign agreements. If the former, could you cite the EU treaty of regulation

In reply to Wicamoi:

Considering that is an EU produced map, your point works well for both sides.

In reply to kipper12:


Art 207 and 218 of the Lisbon treaty makes it clear.

More specifically art 218(2)

"The Council shall authorise the opening of negotiations, adopt negotiating directives, authorise the signing of agreements and conclude them."

In reply to Dax H:








The degradation of industrial areas was Thatcherite policy, and the sale of council housing and the restrictions on workers rights. These were nothing to do with the EU and everything to do with a right wing ideology . If anything EU laws and regulations and interventions through funding have gone a long way to mitigating the destructive effects of Thatcherite toryism. The Brexiters (who think they've got their country back...) have just voted for a successor tory government in perpetuity.
You know that Who song "Won't get fooled again!" Well they just have been

In reply to Dax H:


What was wrong with dangerous/difficult/boring jobs in manufacturing being replaced by jobs with better working conditions and pay in offices in the service industry and high tech factories ?

We had full employment before the referendum, and rising wages, now it's estimated to rise to 7+% by 2019 and wages to fall.


Because of an ill advised deficit reduction strategy that has nothing to do with the EU ?

In reply to RomTheBear:

Nothing, if you have the ability to do such work that is. When I left school* those of us who were less able went straight into apprenticeships, or manual work.

This is the sort of work environment I joined when I left school.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-35167898

This is in 1964, but believe me it had changed little by 1975.


The problem with service industries is they need far less grunt and far more brains. The computer does the "manual" work, and those of lesser ability would struggle to find a niche in such service industries. Also you need a reasonable degree of social skills, good basic maths and literacy for many "low end" service jobs.


All crystal ball bollocks mate.




*Cue four Yorkshiremen sketch

In reply to RomTheBear:


Indeed. A high proportion of recruits to my Leeds-based services business come from mining areas south of Wakefield. These aren't high flyers. They are young workers who could easily, in different times, have found themselves heading down the pit.


I'd be a little more patient with your predictions of doom. The lack of urgency to enact Article 50 combined with the swift overhaul of the Cabinet has calmed nerves in the business world. I'm not saying there won't be an impact but it feels like a soft landing is more likely.

In reply to Big Ger:






Surely the answer has to be to invest in education so that our population has the skills for those jobs ? It's not that hard really, most Europeans countries do it, and pretty successfully.


I'm looking at data on hiring plans. how much you want to bet ?

In reply to RomTheBear:

You'll get no argument from me on that.


A tenner?




It's from your favourite hard-right-wing magazine again

In reply to Big Ger:

I was amused at the BBC reporting of this same story. On the subject of the revision in the growth forecast, they wrote: "the previous forecast for global growth of 3.4% has been slashed to only 3.3%" It did strike me that the reporting could have been a little more relieved if not upbeat and, to be fair, the tone elsewhere in the article was more sanguine, as if two journalists with different agendas had written different parts of the same piece.

In reply to BnB:

THe BBC has had a anti-Brexit agenda from the off.

In reply to Big Ger:


It's interesting that.
I was reading the Spectator and it made the same assertion, almost as if it went without saying. My perception was not the opposite but I felt utterly frustrated by the ridiculous "fairness" with which the BBC approached the debate, setting out the opposing cases with an avoidance of judgement on the truth of assertions. The BBC "Reality Check" was not a check on fact at all. I fear millions of voters proceeded on the basis of a generalised patriotic mood when they were clearly expressing a need for accurate information.
Note that on polling day one BBC news item concerned the rise in population of 500,000 in the last year. I don't think any of the LEAVE press were able to report that but the BBC did. From my point of view I couldn't believe it.
If I want biased reporting (biased in favour of truth) I go to Channel 4 News (God bless 'em!)
And I've found Sky News to be professional. (Only just found I could get it on my telly.)
How Brexiters can claim a news bias against them beggars belief.

In reply to Pete Pozman:
I agree with you that the BBC gave undue prominence to Brexit claims that appeared unjustifiable. The reasoning behind this being that they were obliged to give equal weight in the reporting of each side of the debate. And with the inevitable result that the bland conjecture of the Brexiters was given the same exposure as the opinions of 99% of respected economists. The reality check feature was an interesting counterpoint, but hardly afforded the same prominence as the headlines.

The emergence of a less apocalyptic economic viewpoint post-Brexit is a welcome relief, however, wouldn't you say? That is, if you haven't had enough of experts

In reply to RomTheBear:

I would say possibly: Article 218

1. Without prejudice to the specific provisions laid down in Article 207, agreements between the Union and third countries or international organisations shall be negotiated and concluded in accordance with the following procedure.

2. The Council shall authorise the opening of negotiations, adopt negotiating directives, authorise the signing of agreements and conclude them.

I would read Art 1 and 2 as saying that agreements between the EU and third parties require authorization by the Council. However, Art 218 appears silent on whether individual MS can do the same.

In reply to BnB:



Rom is desperate for doom( having predicted it so assuredly )
You seem to have moved on to look for opportunities in a situation that you had perhaps not voted for.

I can make some predictions too.
I predict that countries outside the EU will see an upcoming opportunity to gain some of the UK market share that EU countries currently have, and to get that, they will be looking to do quick trade deals with the U.K. that previously had not been allowed.
I also predict that in order to stop them losing that market share, the EU countries will be keen to do a quick deal with the U.K.

As they say , you have to be fast or you will be last, so if the EU want to tarry over doing a deal, then they can expect to lose more market share to others who jump in there and want to sell to the UK.

In reply to Jim C:

Not only nobody predicted doom, but I'm not desperate for it, I am very much directly affected by the situation, as I work in the financial sector. You really don't know shit about who I am and how this affect my life, so please refrain from making such claims.

In reply to BnB:

As my nan used to say.

"You BREXIT, Ye Fix IT!"

In reply to Jim C:

So how as the movement in currencies affected your business so far. Are your suppliers just absorbing the costs, or do you reckon its all going to catch with you in a few months time.I accept that the Euro/£ change has not had a big impact as the $/£.Or is it all too early for you to say.

In reply to Jim C:

If anybody is interested : http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/edd13153-7ed7-48b3-9643-472e6be0462e

In reply to BnB:



I don't wish anybody economic ill and I'm much reassured by the Daily Express and Telegraph headlines today; thank goodness we don't need to worry anymore. I've always been more concerned about the political implications for our continent and for peace. And I do actually consider myself a European, now exiled in a Little England permanently in thrall to the Right.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

News Thump nails it!




http://newsthump.com/2016/07/21/labour-plan-annual-leadership-crisis-after-...

In reply to BnB:

Correct, and if the EU want to stick to their no negotiations with the UK until after A50, there is nothing to stop us simultaneously negotiating with the ROW for the goods that currently we buy from the EU.

It is our current business with the UK , for the EU to lose out on if they really don't want to negotiate , but are happy to let others in the ROW to slip in and win some if that market share.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Nobody?

In reply to Pete Pozman:


I don't see Brexit/Remain as a right/left dichotomy. I'm far better persuaded that the split is along socially conservative/liberal grounds. Perhaps that's just because I'm politically and socially libertarian and voted Remain without hesitation but some serious studies are suggesting as much:

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/why-britain-backed-brexit%E2%80%8F/

To the extent that social conservatives could be mocked as "Little Englanders" then you are on the money.

However, if we are stuck with right-leaning political dogma across Europe, then that has as much to do with the ineffectual alternatives offered by the left wing Europe-wide. It's one thing to say you are anti-Austerity but the Greek experiment with Syriza has provided no solutions and France languishes behind its peers in Northern Europe.

In reply to Jim C:


Yes nobody. The treasury/ IMF / OECD all made different scenarios. So far what they predicted pretty much realised. The question is whether we will end up in the more benign scenario or the more extreme.

In reply to Jim C:


Any negotiation with ROW will depend on the type of deal we get with the EU so I'm not sure how that works.
Plus as long as we are in the EU it would be illegal to enter negotiations of this type.

In reply to RomTheBear:



I enjoy your usually insightful contributions, Rom, but here you are misguided on either count. We can immediately enter as many negotiations as we wish, it's the signing of the final treaty that is proscribed. Meanwhile it may turn out that our final deal with the EU depends as much on the progress of our negotiations elsewhere.

In reply to BnB:

No we can't. It would have to be authorised by the EU council basically as this is an exclusive competence of the EU. But I agree in practice there is nothing preventing us from having informal discussions.
Anyway it's unlikely we would conclude any such trade deals within two years.

One thing that could benefit us though, in the committee review one of the panel was making the point that big bloc tend to negotiate with weaker countries as a "practice round" before negotiation with the bigger partners. For example China with Switzerland, or EU with Korea. That could allow us to get TTIP, or a deal with China, earlier than the EU does (Although IMO none of it even comes close to the single market in terms of economic benefits - but better than nothing)


The consensus seems to be that we should be doing everything in parallel. Negotiating with ROW without knowing what we'll get with the EU would be difficult, legally and practically. Did you watch the treasury committee evidence review I posted ?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Interesting thought.