You have missed the point SH. We do not want to be bombarded with external articles every day - or are you trying to suppress real debate ? In a real debate I argue my corner - I do not plonk piles of paper on the desk and say 'read that and comment'.
Strangely you never seem to demand debating material when anti Brexit or anti right wing material is constantly posted. Typical leftwing censorship.
Today Sterling rose against the Euro as British manufacturing growth climbed to a two and a half year high last month. This was fuelled by new orders from both home and abroad and adding to signs the economy ended 2016 strongly.
Other people sometimes bring in external material, but your use of it (in about 7 or 8 consecutive posts) appears to be to substitute your own debating skills - of which you have very little. Have you ever seen me bring in external material of any kind ? If we go along that road then you will constantly bring in long texts drawn from we don't know where - and they will be answered by other long texts drawn from either left wing sources, or anti Brexit ones. But the result is that we will no longer be debating with each other.
Can you not even come to some agreement about how you use the message board? Methinks you just seek to disagree.... I for one do not have the time or will to wade through a long cut and paste with no pointers as to what a poster wants to discuss... ...............different clearly on a non-debating thread
http://archive.is/SkxSN My how The Telegraph has sunk - where on earth do they get their information from? If the EU can't manage to strike trade deals with the likes of USA, China and India, what makes them think the UK can?
The EU. could have struck deals with all of these countries very quickly but the conditions attached to them were not advantageous for Europe. They would have opened Europe to gene manipulated rubbish from America together with lower safety and environmental standards, and to being flooded by cheap Chinese products on the other side - the latter of which would endanger more jobs in Europe than it would create. America, particularly, has a massive trade inbalance and needs to export more but would not necessarily be keen on opening its markets at the same time - Trump has threatened much higher tariffs on Chinese goods and there is every reason to assume that a trade relationship with the USA. would be a very one sided affair.
The EU cannot manage to do trade deals with others because all of the 28 countries have tone in agreement. The recent problem with the EU-Canada deal highlighted this problem. It is obviously much easier to agree with just one nation. Both the USA and China have indicated they would like a trade deal with the UK a.s.a.p. Australia is also very keen to do a trade deal with the UK, recently describing as dealing with the EU as very difficult and a protectionist organisation. The Telegraph has merely highlighted the multitude of opportunities awaiting once the straightjacket of the EU is thrown off.
If that is the case... then why are so many commentators talking about years of work to get deals in place etc etc. Surely all these commentators, politicians , strategists etc aren't all as you call it 'remoaners'??
It takes many years to do a free trade deal with the EU because of the need to satisfy the interests of 28 member nations. It took Canada 7 years to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU. Negotiations between two nations is therefore much less complicated so agreement can be reached much quicker. The Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) has worked out it has taken the US on average 18 months to agree free trade deals, implementation can take from a few months to many years. Of course WTO rules can be used prior to final agreement. Agreements signed during a US presidential election year can take 40% less time than deals struck at other times. Trump is very keen to secure a free trade deal with the UK. The UK is already working with potential partners on preparatory work for the impending free trade deals.
You have to smile when people go on about trade deals with the USA. Trump himself has already said on his official website, Negotiate fair trade deals that create American jobs, increase American wages, and reduce America's trade deficit. So he wants a protectionist policy that will reduce their trade deficit. As the UK is one of the countries that trades in surplus with them, I think we should stick to what we have and forget the idea of making a mint out of them.
There is an argument that trade deals with large multiple-partnered entities are long drawn out. Of course trade deals between two countries like the US and the UK or China and the UK would be quicker - they would dictate the terms and we would have to agree.
Everything I have read on trade deals says that the country which imports the least holds the trump cards. Therefore we would have much less leverage with the big players like the US and Canada..... likely to be a no better deal than in the EU I have just been reading about the US's aggressive taxing of VW's exports to the US to protect their own manufacturing.. The so-called Chicken Tax.... I cannot see any decent deal for the UK with this new protectionist President coming in
Interesting study by the independent Centre for Business Research at Cambridge University. Project Fear Brexit predictions were 'flawed and partisan', new study says 5 JANUARY 2017 • 11:37AM Predictions by the Treasury ahead of the Brexit vote have been brought into question by a study which says that leaving the European Union will halve net migration, give British workers a pay rise and help to solve the housing crisis. The report from the Centre for Business Research at the University of Cambridge examined the possible future scenarios following the referendum decision to leave the EU. George Osborne, the former chancellor, was heavily criticised in the run-up to the referendum for a series of bleak Treasury assessments about Britain's prospects outside the EU, which became known as "project fear". We have looked very carefully at what the Treasury has said about this and we find its work very flawed and very partisan However the academics' report forecast that if controls on migration from the EU were introduced in the middle of 2019, net migration would fall to around 165,000 from 2020. The fall would be a 50 per cent drop in net migration – currently running at more than 330,000 a year – but would not deliver the Government’s promise of cutting it to tens of thousands a year. The report was heavily critical of the Treasury’s forecasts about the prospect of Britain agreeing a new free trade deal after Brexit. It said: “There are probably only two practical options. One is a free trade agreement along the lines of the one Canada has just signed or else no agreement on trade in which case you fall back on WTO rules. “The impact of both of those is pretty uncertain. We have looked very carefully at what the Treasury has said about this and we find its work very flawed and very partisan.” Average earnings are forecast to rise by more than 2 per cent a year, partly because of lower levels of migration after Brexit. The report said: "Our equations for earnings suggest that earnings will rise by more than 2 per cent as employment rates reach a peak in 2017 and especially as migration reduces from 2019." The report also forecast that house prices will become more affordable for people on lower incomes. Inflation is forecast to rise to around 3 per cent by the end of 2017. It said: “It will be higher than it has been for some years. The big question is will inflation get out of hand and we don’t think it will." The academics said in the report that the Treasury's forecasts were pessimistic about the prospect of future trade deals after Brexit: “Analysis by HM Treasury of the potential impact of various outcomes for trade outside the EU is examined and found wanting. “Instead the actual experience of UK export performance is examined for a long period including both pre- and post- accession years. This suggests a more limited impact of EU membership. “While we include a scenario based on Treasury assumptions, a more realistic, although in our view still pessimistic, scenario assumes half of the trade loss of the Treasury. The results are presented through comparing these scenarios with a pre-referendum forecast.” Business investment would fall by between 7 per cent and 15 per cent from 2017 due to the uncertainty of Brexit, the report said. However it said that these falls “are largely due to uncertainty and diminish from 2019 once the UK leaves the EU”. A HM Treasury spokesman said: “We want the best outcome for Britain. "That means pursuing a bespoke arrangement, which was not what the Treasury’s pre-referendum analysis was based on. "This will give British companies the maximum freedom to trade and enables us to decide for ourselves how we control immigration.”
I wish we had a vaguely intelligent Tory poster/Brexiteer on here, I have no time for this idiot and there are lots of points I'd like to discuss...
Interesting that a report in food and supermarkets today reports that a fall in sterling by 17% against the dollar and 10% against the Euro will start filtering through against food prices
