Mark, I don't think anything I write could change your mind. Doomer V optimist writ large.Mark wrote: Obviously, it wouldn't all be bad - I'm sure there would be winners too, but I'm struggling to see who they would be at the moment....
Any suggestions ?
Brexit process
Moderator: Peak Moderation
Those are very easy pigeon holes.stumuz1 wrote:Mark, I don't think anything I write could change your mind. Doomer V optimist writ large.Mark wrote: Obviously, it wouldn't all be bad - I'm sure there would be winners too, but I'm struggling to see who they would be at the moment....
Any suggestions ?
I'm happy to read any opinion/evidence to the contrary with an open mind.
Can you point us to any potential upside for manufacturing ?
-
Little John
Can you point to any significant issues with manufacturing competitiveness post Brexit that were not also true pre-Brexit? Oh, and by the way, deliberate acts of political aggression by the EU to punish the UK for leaving so as to set an example to other in the EU who may be considering leaving do not count since, by definition, any organisation that was willing to act like that would not be one we should be a member of anyway.
Did you read my post at 9:35 ?Little John wrote:Can you point to any significant issues with manufacturing competitiveness post Brexit that were not also true pre-Brexit?
Or just totally ignore, as it didn't fit in with your narrative / world view ?
Another point is that UK products would be more expensive in the EU when we're on WTO Rules...
I've asked stumuz1 to evidence why he thinks I'm mistaken.
Similarly, if you've got any (constructive) comments/evidence on why UK manufacturing would be better off (or at least status quo) with a No Deal Brexit ?
The only possible advantage I can see is that the £ would probably lose a lot of value.
Everything read with an open mind
UK firms 'near point of no return':
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45931537
To quote Bill Clinton..... 'It's the Economy, stupid'.....
I know that we need to re-engineer the economy for a new post peak world, but Brexit is doing none of that - we're just going to shoot ourselves in the foot....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45931537
To quote Bill Clinton..... 'It's the Economy, stupid'.....
I know that we need to re-engineer the economy for a new post peak world, but Brexit is doing none of that - we're just going to shoot ourselves in the foot....
-
Little John
I have been boring for a very long time....Little John wrote:You are getting boring now Mark.
But the subject is quite important, no ?
Regaining sovereignty is all well and good - if it can be achieved, that is....
But one of the prices to be paid seems to be a very large economic hit.
I've asked you, and stumuz1, and anyone else reading....., where is the economic benefit from a No Deal Brexit....??
I'm happy to learn, but nobody has (can) point to anything at all....., just some vague notion of a Trade Deal with the US (really ?)
All I can think of is a possible upturn in the fishing industry, if we regain total control of our fishing grounds...
Anything else......??
And that would help because...... we really need some more political chaos and a Leadership Election for the Tories..... ??Little John wrote:On a happier note. Looks like May will be pushed this week, I reckon.
May only got elected in the first place because she was basically a compromise candidate between the 2 factions....
So, who would you prefer....., David Davis ? Boris ? Rees-Mogg ? Gove ?
But it's equally likely that somebody from the other faction could win...?
Tory Leadership Elections seldom go the way people think....
It depends on what you call economic hit. If you mean total GDP then the answer is probably neutral.Mark wrote: But one of the prices to be paid seems to be a very large economic hit.
I've asked you, and stumuz1, and anyone else reading....., where is the economic benefit from a No Deal Brexit....?? Anything else......??
If you mean the economic situation of the unskilled UK worker then a massive increase in their economic fortunes will be had. If we do Brexit correctly. Their ability to provide basic goods has been seriously diminished by EU free movement.
If you mean the economic ability of smaller companies to out compete the tax dodging capabilities of Irish registered multi- nationals companies, then again Brexit will be a bonus.
Remember, huge corporations benefit massively from EU bureaucracy. Zombie companies being kept afloat by quantitive easing. The little guy doesn't get a look in.
If you mean the economic subsidising of the banking and finance industry (bailouts) then again making the city a bit more agile is no bad thing.
If you want a concrete example of a company gaining a competitive edge by leaving the EU i will give you one.
A company I'm dealing with makes an industrial fluid ( sorry can't tell you which one I have signed a ruinous NDA!)
There is a EU regulation coming down the pipeline which is going to ban it because of deleterious health effects. Apparently it is drunk in Eastern EU countries because it is cheap.
We don't have the any issues in the UK with it. So hopefully the production line that is presently making it will carry on. For it is not banned in the rest of the world.
The company is also developing a similar product for the EU market. So post Brexit a product that is made in the UK will carry on being made in the UK.
Remember, value added manufacturing in the UK only accounts for about 9% of GDP.
-
kenneal - lagger
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14290
- Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
- Location: Newbury, Berkshire
- Contact:
No one on the Remain side ever talks about "the ever closer union" which the EU bureaucracy and MEPs are for ever talking about. This will mean the UK being forced into the Euro at some time iin the future which would be ruinous for the UK.
No one seems to know that another economic crash is on the way and if we are still in the EU we will be called upon to bail out the EU and its banks. Italy is on the brink and the rest of the Med countries aren't far off and bailing out Italy will be a whole lot different, in a very bad way, to bailing out Greece. Those costs to us will far outweigh anything that Brexit will throw at us.
No one seems to know that another economic crash is on the way and if we are still in the EU we will be called upon to bail out the EU and its banks. Italy is on the brink and the rest of the Med countries aren't far off and bailing out Italy will be a whole lot different, in a very bad way, to bailing out Greece. Those costs to us will far outweigh anything that Brexit will throw at us.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
-
careful_eugene
- Posts: 647
- Joined: 26 Jun 2006, 15:39
- Location: Nottingham UK
I don't believe the decline in manufacturing has been due to our membership of the EU. For example we stopped making motorcycles at that time due to a better product being available from Japan. Also I'm not sure whether coal mining counts as manufacturing but in the Nottinghamshire area there were a lot of companies manufacturing mining equipment that no longer exist. The decline of these industries can't be blamed on our membership of the EU.stumuz1 wrote:Another thing.
Google % of UK manufacturing between 1972 and today.
The EU has been devastating for UK manufacturing
Paid up member of the Petite bourgeoisie
-
careful_eugene
- Posts: 647
- Joined: 26 Jun 2006, 15:39
- Location: Nottingham UK
I don't believe the decline in manufacturing has been due to our membership of the EU. For example we stopped making motorcycles at that time due to a better product being available from Japan. Also I'm not sure whether coal mining counts as manufacturing but in the Nottinghamshire area there were a lot of companies manufacturing mining equipment that no longer exist. Our own government decided to end coal production in the UK.stumuz1 wrote:Another thing.
Google % of UK manufacturing between 1972 and today.
The EU has been devastating for UK manufacturing
Paid up member of the Petite bourgeoisie
-
Little John
So if a decline can not be laid at the door of the EU, then neither can any increase either, by that logic
In other words, either the EU has had little effect on manufacturing in this country. in which case what use is it? Or, it has had an effect (a deleterious one). In which case, what are we doing in in it?
In other words, either the EU has had little effect on manufacturing in this country. in which case what use is it? Or, it has had an effect (a deleterious one). In which case, what are we doing in in it?
ERG Brexiteer backs remaining within REACH:
https://www.endsreport.com/article/6113 ... thin-reach
Conservative MP and European Research Group (ERG) member Matthew Offord has said it would be “good for the United Kingdom� to continue to operate within the EU’s REACH chemicals regime after Brexit. Speaking at an event in parliament on the post-Brexit regulation of chemicals, organised by NGO CHEM Trust, Offord said that “I’ve been described as a hard Brexiteer. I’m nothing of the sort. I’m a green Brexiteer�. He added that he recognised the importance of the EU to green policies, which have “served us very well�. Leaving REACH, “one of the most sophisticated regulatory systems in the world� would cause disruption to industry and problems with trade, health and the environment, he told the gathering of MPs, peers and campaigners. His views on REACH stand in contrast to those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, who criticised the regime as a non-tariff barrier to trade at the Conservative Party conference, while neglecting to address the environmental and health protections REACH offers.
So far, EU-27 negotiator Michel Barnier’s team have rejected a proposal that the UK should remain within REACH through an ‘associate membership’, arguing that it is a single market mechanism and therefore not available outside it. But Offord, a member of the Commons’ Environmental Audit Committee (EAC), said that “It’s actually in the interests of the EU and the 27 member states� for there to be an agreement on REACH. Doing otherwise runs the risk of the UK undercutting the EU by ignoring the law’s safeguards, a prospect that leaves him “very concerned�. Even if left formally outside REACH, the UK could still mirror the decisions taken under it, he told the meeting. Offord said that he would be “very comfortable with that� and that it would not mean being within the customs union or European Economic Area. EAC chair Mary Creagh, who chaired the meeting said that UK companies want to stay within REACH, though a no-deal Brexit was becoming “more likely by the day�. A hard exit would mean losing 12,000 REACH registrations, she noted, so, “We want to stay in REACH as we don’t want those companies to register again.� If the government goes ahead with its plan to simply copy out REACH and is unable to obtain the database behind the regime, a UK-REACH “risks becoming zombie legislation� - no longer updated or monitored after exit day. Although Creagh said she has been “shouting at the hurricane� to Brexit secretary Dominic Raab, little detail has emerged on exactly how the government will transpose the law. However, there are complications to remaining in REACH or otherwise continuing to be connected to the European Chemicals Agency. CHEM Trust executive director Michael Warhust noted that Switzerland considered had considered participation in REACH. To do this, it needed to do three things: accept regulatory decisions as binding; be bound by the decisions of the European Court of Justice or European Free Trade Area court; and implement other legislation to ensure that chemicals are used safely, including the Industrial Emissions Directive. Ultimately, the Swiss did not agree to that package – though they do “copy out a lot� of REACH decisions, he added. “We don’t think it is impossible for the UK to meet those criteria,� Warhurst said, especially considering that remaining under the IED will be necessary for Northern Ireland to continue being part of the all-Ireland energy market. Lord Teverson, chair of the Lords’ EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, expressed doubt that the UK will be able to stay within REACH. “So we just have to get on with job� of setting up an alternative system, though “it’s going to be expensive and it will take a long time.�
https://www.endsreport.com/article/6113 ... thin-reach
Conservative MP and European Research Group (ERG) member Matthew Offord has said it would be “good for the United Kingdom� to continue to operate within the EU’s REACH chemicals regime after Brexit. Speaking at an event in parliament on the post-Brexit regulation of chemicals, organised by NGO CHEM Trust, Offord said that “I’ve been described as a hard Brexiteer. I’m nothing of the sort. I’m a green Brexiteer�. He added that he recognised the importance of the EU to green policies, which have “served us very well�. Leaving REACH, “one of the most sophisticated regulatory systems in the world� would cause disruption to industry and problems with trade, health and the environment, he told the gathering of MPs, peers and campaigners. His views on REACH stand in contrast to those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, who criticised the regime as a non-tariff barrier to trade at the Conservative Party conference, while neglecting to address the environmental and health protections REACH offers.
So far, EU-27 negotiator Michel Barnier’s team have rejected a proposal that the UK should remain within REACH through an ‘associate membership’, arguing that it is a single market mechanism and therefore not available outside it. But Offord, a member of the Commons’ Environmental Audit Committee (EAC), said that “It’s actually in the interests of the EU and the 27 member states� for there to be an agreement on REACH. Doing otherwise runs the risk of the UK undercutting the EU by ignoring the law’s safeguards, a prospect that leaves him “very concerned�. Even if left formally outside REACH, the UK could still mirror the decisions taken under it, he told the meeting. Offord said that he would be “very comfortable with that� and that it would not mean being within the customs union or European Economic Area. EAC chair Mary Creagh, who chaired the meeting said that UK companies want to stay within REACH, though a no-deal Brexit was becoming “more likely by the day�. A hard exit would mean losing 12,000 REACH registrations, she noted, so, “We want to stay in REACH as we don’t want those companies to register again.� If the government goes ahead with its plan to simply copy out REACH and is unable to obtain the database behind the regime, a UK-REACH “risks becoming zombie legislation� - no longer updated or monitored after exit day. Although Creagh said she has been “shouting at the hurricane� to Brexit secretary Dominic Raab, little detail has emerged on exactly how the government will transpose the law. However, there are complications to remaining in REACH or otherwise continuing to be connected to the European Chemicals Agency. CHEM Trust executive director Michael Warhust noted that Switzerland considered had considered participation in REACH. To do this, it needed to do three things: accept regulatory decisions as binding; be bound by the decisions of the European Court of Justice or European Free Trade Area court; and implement other legislation to ensure that chemicals are used safely, including the Industrial Emissions Directive. Ultimately, the Swiss did not agree to that package – though they do “copy out a lot� of REACH decisions, he added. “We don’t think it is impossible for the UK to meet those criteria,� Warhurst said, especially considering that remaining under the IED will be necessary for Northern Ireland to continue being part of the all-Ireland energy market. Lord Teverson, chair of the Lords’ EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, expressed doubt that the UK will be able to stay within REACH. “So we just have to get on with job� of setting up an alternative system, though “it’s going to be expensive and it will take a long time.�