It is good to see a significant number of MP's decided to back the will of the large minority of people as expressed in the referendum. I hope some members of the House of Lords not subject to party whips to also do their constitutional duty duty and fully question and challenge all anomalies in the proposed invocation of article 50. All of this talk of stalling tactics is to rush through something which needs the fullest consideration by our elected parliament.
What should be more of a worry is that Liam Fox has today said that the government will not be able to meet the targets they set for exporting from the UK.
The target was set by George Osborne in 2012. Fox said due to low global growth it was unachievable by 2020 but it was an achievable target in years thereafter. The poor growth in the EU contributed. The UK had record growth end 2016, highest level since records began in 1997. This was boosted by strong goods export to non EU countries.
But the UK will not be selling what it hoped to do, which projected budgets have been set with. You are right that it was a target set five years ago, but just when will the target be met? Five years after?
Well the good thing is we have just recorded record exports. The UK exports to non EU countries is growing rapidly whilst exports to the EU represent an ever-smaller element of our economy. EU exports are a mere 12% of British economy. Ditching much of the unnecessary EU regulations will benefit the vast majority of UK businesses.
No, you have it the wrong way around. When the value of a currency falls it increases exports due to the lower price on currency exchange. Obviously this can be mitigated if the exporting company uses a high percentage of imported goods within manufacture. The FTSE 100 has gained rapidly because of the UK's temporary fall in value. This is because much of the business of FTSE 100 companies is done abroad. The problem that the Southern European countries inside the Euro group have is they cannot devalue to make their goods more competitive. Harold Wilson's government used to do this fairly often!!
As i understand it.... we benefit for about 6 months to a year and then the cost of imports forces the price of everything up and exports then become more expensive?
Not really. An export item may have a relatively small percentage of imported items. The export price is discounted on 100% of cost. I should imagine our services section, including finance, is relatively unaffected by import costs.
The Donald has accused Germany of profiting from a 'grossly undervalued' currency. He has added Germany to his list of China and Japan which he claims is responsible for 'global freeloading' due to their weak currencies. He may have a policy to devalue the USD to help exports.
You choose some strange bedfellows SH. The first by product of Brexit being a 'love in' with a nutter who is currently alienating the whole World. He has had a bit of a tiff with the Australians as well. Apparently Britain, now so desparate for new partners, is prepared to ally themselves to someone who shows all the signs of wanting to embark on a trade war with the entire World. Interesting to see that the president of Mexico is now in Europe.
The Donald is certainly a strange one but his attitude of not wanting to take Australia's rejected asylum seekers is entirely consistent with his policies. His priority is to look after the interests of the US, that is his job. The US will remain a major trading nation, his intention is to renegotiate trade deals which he feels are not fair to his country. Once all the hysteria dies down I expect the logic behind his actions will become clearer, I know the UK will emerge as one of the winners from his changes.
Dear oh dear, more bad news for the anti Brexit doom mongers. Mark Carney, the Bank of England governor, has had to raise the forecast for 2017 yet again. It has gone from 0.8% to 1.4% now revised up to 2%. The UK may continue to have the highest growth in the Western world. The end of the world is nigh - a bit later!!
Game changer. The Ancient Kingdom of Rheged has been found in Scotland after it was previously believed to have been in England. Quite obviously, they never signed up for the Union in 1707 - so presumably the Tories have no right to drag it out of the EU...
Another game changer BB. It is unclear whether Cornwall was ever in England. There was never an 'act of union' between England and Cornwall, as with the others - it was also not taxed the same as the rest of England, paying much 'over the odds' on its tin mining. Cornwall is also the only part of the UK. where the current Queen is not the official head of state - this distinction belonging to the Duke of Cornwall ie. Charlie. So was Cornwall ever legally in the UK ? In which case, was it ever in the EU ?
A new angle? A FAIR SOLUTION regarding Migrants? I DIDN'T DO THESE CALCULATIONS, I AM JUST PASSING THEM ON. Our rulers - Mrs Merkel and M. Hollande - have demanded that all European countries take their "fairshare" of the (mainly Muslim) migrant hordes over-running Europe's apparently unguarded borders. But how do you decide what a "fair share" is? Merkel and Hollande try to link the number of migrants to each country's GDP as that will ensure Britain gets landed with most of the flood of human beings pouring into Europe. But why not link the number of refugees each country takes to its population density? Here is how it works out. Europe's most densely populated country is England. England's population density is 413 people per square kilometre (413 ppl/km2). Now, how many refugees would the main European countries need to take for them to reach the same population density as Europe's most densely populated country –England? To reach the same population density as England (413 ppl/km2) Germany could take 67 million migrants, France could accommodate a whopping 160 million and Spain and even larger 161 million. And our close neighbours in Scotland have room for over 25 million! That should please Sturgeon. In all, just thirteen European countries could accommodate more than 680 million migrants before reaching the same population density as England. Well. That seems to solve the problem of deciding how countries should take their "fair share" of the migrant swarm. So, using my calculations, there's no need for Europe's most densely populated country - England - to take any migrants at all and our friends in these other countries can comfortably absorb over 680 million migrants. That seems to me to be giving each country the "fair share" that Merkel and Hollande demand! Itis very fair and politically correct to argue that England is full for now.
All very amusing SH. There is a problem however - it is not England which is in the EU. but rather the UK. As far as the EU. is concerned England is only a region of the EU. ie. it has the same status as the German state of Nordrheinwestfalen NRW. for short. NRW (where I live), has a population density of well over 540 people per square km. Britain as a whole is 4th in population density in the EU. England is not, strictly speaking, a country but rather a 'territory' or a region of the UK. Like Holland, within the Netherlands. Unlike even NRW. it does not have its own Parliament - Scotland does, and is, therefore, a country. So, bearing in mind that Scotland is a country whereas England isn't - is England occupied territory ? I declare that, according to that analysis, England's votes in the referendum shouldn't be counted and it should be restricted to Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland.
Perhaps you need to remind Sturgeon that Scotland is not in the EU, rather the UK, she keeps forgetting.!!
